Copyright 2013 by the RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

Mid-South Educational Research Association 2013, Vol. 20, No. 2, 28-34

Self-efficacy, Test Anxiety, and Self-reported Test-taking Ability: How do They Differ
Between High- and Low-achieving Students?

Jasna Vuk
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

David T. Morse
Mississippi State University

The purpose of this study was to compare high- and low-achieving undergraduate college students on self-
efficacy, test anxiety, and self-reported test-taking ability. Eighty students from 2 sections of educational
psychology course participated in the study; complete data were collected for 76 students. Before taking their
first exam, students answered 1 question about their test-taking ability and 2 subscales of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Students who scored 0.5 SD higher than the overall mean of
their 5 multiple-choice examinations were identified as high-achieving (n = 25), and those students who
scored lower than -0.5 SD as low-achieving (n = 20). Statistically significant differences were observed
between high-achieving and low-achieving students on self-efficacy and test-taking ability, but not on test
anxiety. These results have implications for better understanding how self-reported factors associated with
achievement do or do not differ based on actual achievement.
Keywords: self-efficacy, test anxiety, test-taking ability, college students

According to Bandura (1989), self-efficacy (MSLQ) accounted for a statistically significant

relates to “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to amount variance in the course grade for high-
exercise control over events that affect their lives” achieving students, but not for low-achieving
(p. 1175). These beliefs influence people’s thoughts, students. Scores on self-efficacy scales have been
feelings, motivation, and behavior (Bandura, 1993). shown to relate to different college outcomes, such
Educators are constantly searching how to improve as cumulative GPA, semester GPA, course grade,
students’ academic achievement. Researchers (e.g., course examinations, retention rates, enrollment
Bandura, 1993; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; status, and a combination of course work and final
Hsieh, Sullivan, Sass, & Guerra, 2012; Pajares, grade (e.g., Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011; Gore,
1996; Putwain & Derek, 2013; Zimmerman, 1989) 2006; Hsieh, Sullivan, & Guerra, 2007; Lynch,
have identified self-efficacy as a factor that 2006, 2010; Mattern & Shaw, 2010; Phan, 2010).
positively influences academic performance, Recent research on the relationship between
students’ motivation, self-regulation, and self-efficacy and academic outcomes of college
persistence. Mattern and Shaw (2010) indicated that students supports Bandura’s (1977) early findings
college students with higher academic self-efficacy that past academic experiences influenced the
also had higher Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) formation of students’ beliefs about their academic
scores, grade point averages (GPA), and retention abilities. For instance, Chemers, Hu, and Garcia
rates in their second year of college than did students (2001) reported that first-year college students who
with lower academic self-efficacy. Burlison, had higher high school GPAs also had higher
Murphy, and Dwyer (2009) reported that the Self- academic self-efficacy in college and higher
efficacy for Learning and Performance subscale of academic expectations and performance than did
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire students with lower high school GPAs.
A difference between high- and low-achieving
Correspondence concerning this article should be
students on self-efficacy has been noted in numerous
addressed to Jasna Vuk, University of Arkansas
studies. Devonport and Lane (2006) reported that
for Medical Sciences, Office of Educational
self-efficacy to manage time, to use resources, and
Development, 4301 W. Markham Street #595,
to work in groups of students who withdrew from
Little Rock, AR 77205-7199 E-mail:
college was significantly lower than for students
jvuk@[Link]
who were progressing in college. Scores on the self-

Fall 2013 28 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 SELF-EFFICACY, TEST ANXIETY, AND SELF-REPORTED TEST-TAKING ABILITY: HOW DO
THEY DIFFER BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS?
efficacy subscale of the MSLQ were significantly of anxious physiological arousal might be beneficial
greater for the high ACT group (ACT > 22) than for for test performance; too much physiological
the low ACT group (ACT < 20) of undergraduate arousal might interfere with ability to focus on a
college students (Burlison et al., 2009). Students in task, but too little arousal might not allow students
good academic standing (GPA > 2.0) had to perceive the task as being significant and
significantly higher self-efficacy scores than did challenging.
students in poor academic standing (GPA < 2.0), and According to Bonaccio and Reeve (2010), test
self-efficacy was statistically significantly and anxiety might depend on test takers’ perceptions of
positively related to students’ self-reported GPA themselves, the test, and test-taking situation.
(Hsieh et al., 2007). Another factor that might contribute to development
In contrast to self-efficacy, negative influence of test anxiety is the performance of a peer reference
of test anxiety on academic achievement has been group (Goetz, Preckel, Zeidner, & Schleyer, 2008;
demonstrated in numerous studies (Chapell et al., Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999). When gifted students
2005; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, attended classes with other gifted students, they
Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Seipp, 1991). Putwain, experienced higher test anxiety than they did when
Connors, and Symes (2010) reported “that test in classes with mixed-ability students; however, the
anxiety, the debilitating anxiety experienced by emotionality component of test anxiety was more
students in assessment contexts, shows a small, but reactive to the achievement of the peer reference
significant inverse relation with measures of group than the cognitive component (Zeidner &
achievement and/or assessment performance” (p. Schlyer, 1999). According to Williams (1996), high
11). Chapell et al. (2005) documented small, achievers might experience test anxiety because of
statistically significant, negative correlations their high academic standards and self-criticism.
between students’ GPAs and scores on the Test An additional element of the picture is that of
Anxiety Inventory (TAI) for undergraduate students test-taking ability. Bandura (1988) reported that any
(r = -.15) and much smaller negative correlations for task can be challenging for someone who has high
graduate students (-.09). Similarly, Cohen, Ben-Zur, self-efficacy beliefs to succeed, or threatening for
and Rosenfeld (2008) obtained a negative someone who does not perceive himself or herself
correlation between test anxiety and college as being capable of performing that task. Test-taking
students’ performance, as measured by end-of-term ability in the present study relates to a perceived test
examination grades. Bembenutty (2009) taker’s self-efficacy to succeed on a test in
administered the MSLQ to 364 college students in comparison to other test takers. Therefore, we
an introductory psychology class and documented constructed test taking ability as a proxy for test-
that test anxiety scores were negatively correlated taking self-efficacy.
with self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the final Morse and Morse (1993) investigated the
grade. explanatory power of test-taking attributes for
Tests are widely used for evaluation of student explaining differences in course achievement among
performance, and students often experience pressure college students. In their study, perceived test-taking
to achieve high test scores. The cognitive (or worry) skill, measured as a single, Likert-type scale item
component of test anxiety has been more influential (“How skillful do you think you are at taking tests?”)
than has the emotionality component to test with five response options, accounted for 27% of the
performance and was associated with lower test variance in course achievement, measured as total
performance (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Pintrich et scores across all course examinations. Test-wiseness
al., 1993; Seipp, 1991). According to Cassady and scores, answer-changing behavior scores, perceived
Johnson (2002), the cognitive part of test anxiety is test-taking skill, and willingness to change answers
composed of a person’s “internal dialogue regarding on tests combined to explain 59% of score variance
evaluative situations in the times prior to, during, in course achievement. Hence, self-efficacy
and after evaluative tasks” (p. 272). The judgments of test taking skill do correspond to test
emotionality component “refers to self-perceived performance at well beyond a chance level. In
physiological arousal during testing, such as fear, summary, self-efficacy and test anxiety in relation to
tension, and nervousness” (Williams, 1996, p. 159). academic performance have been extensively
Cassady and Johnson (2002) stated that among a researched in the past, but a lack of research exists
sample of college students in an undergraduate on differences in test anxiety between high- and
educational psychology class, cognitive test anxiety low-achieving students. Additionally, differences
was negatively correlated with their academic between high- and low-achieving students on self-
performance on three multiple-choice course efficacy specific to their test-taking abilities have
examinations and scores on the SAT. However, the not been investigated in previous research. The aim
emotionality component of the test anxiety that of the present study was to investigate academic
involved a moderate physiological arousal was self-efficacy and test-taking characteristics that
associated with higher examination performance. might differ as the function of academic
Therefore, they concluded that a moderate amount achievement. Therefore, we attempted to answer the

Fall 2013 29 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 JASNA VUK AND DAVID T. MORSE

following research question: What is the difference items on examination 1 and one item on examination
between high- and low-achieving students on self- 5. These items were the results of minor differences
efficacy, test anxiety, and self-reported test-taking between notes and lectures of the two instructors.
ability? Data from the five class examinations yielded KR-
20 estimates of internal consistency reliability
Method between .87 and .89.
Participants High- and low-performing students were to be
We used a convenience sample for this study. identified by choosing those students who
Participants in the study were undergraduate college performed at least one half a standard deviation from
students enrolled in two sections of an educational the class mean across the set of tests. For example,
psychology course from a large, southern university. the low-performing group included those students
Sixty-one students from Section 1 of the course and scoring at least one half standard deviation below
38 students from Section 2 of the course signed the the overall study mean across the tests. This tactic
informed consent form; therefore, 99 students gave accomplished two goals: (a) it differentiated the two
informed consent. Eighty students participated in the subgroups more sharply; and (b) it served to
study because 10 students dropped the course, and implement the first portion of Kerlinger’s (1973)
nine students did not take all the examinations. “Max-Min-Con” advice for researchers, that of
Complete data were collected for 76 students. A maximizing the impact of the independent variable.
number of different majors were represented among Students scoring within 0.5 SD of the mean were
the participants, nearly all of whom took the course excluded from analyses comparing high- and low-
as a requirement for their degree or as a behavioral achieving students. For a normally distributed
science elective. Twenty-six percent of students population, following this protocol for a starting
were education majors, 25% kinesiology majors, group size of 99 would yield approximately 61 cases
10% engineering majors, 10% biological science remaining. A sample size of 60 would have yielded
majors, and 9% business majors. Approximately a power of .70 to detect a “large” effect size
11% of the students were from majors of nursing, (Cohen’s f2 = 0.17), which was deemed satisfactory
animal and dairy sciences, and undecided. Sixty- for the study.
nine percent were female students. Average age of Instruments
participants was 20.8 (SD = 3.6, n = 80) years with The MSLQ has two large sets of scales:
a range from 18 to 41. The mean self-reported ACT Motivational Scale (31 items) and Learning
score was 22.4 (SD = 4.0, n = 71), with a range from Strategies Scales (50 items) which were developed
16 to 30. Self-reported grade point average (GPA) for college students (Pintrich et al., 1991). Two
was 3.09 (SD = 0.6, n = 72), with a range from 1.4 subscales of the Motivational Scale were
to 4.0. Sixty-five percent of students identified administered: The Expectancy Component: Self
themselves as Caucasian, 34% African American, Efficacy for Learning and Performance (8 items, α =
and 1% Native American. Thirty-one percent of .93) and Affective Component: Test Anxiety (5
students were juniors, 30% sophomores, 23% items, α = .80). These subscales are Likert-type
seniors, 15% freshmen, and 1% other. scales with scores ranging from 1 (not at all true for
Demographic characteristics between the two me) to 7 (very true for me) and with item scores
sections were very similar; thus, the sections were averaged for the scale score.
combined for analyses relevant to the primary The Self-Efficacy for Learning and
research questions. Performance subscale in the MSLQ consists of items
Procedure that assess expectancy for success (e.g., “I believe I
Before taking their first examination, students will receive an excellent grade in this class”) and
signed an informed consent to participate in the self-efficacy (“I am certain I can master the skills
study. After giving consent, participants of the study being taught in this class”). The measure of Test
answered a demographic questionnaire, two Anxiety in the MSLQ consists of items that assess a
subscales of the MSLQ: Self-Efficacy for Learning cognitive component of test anxiety (“When I take a
and Performance, and Test Anxiety (Pintrich, Smith, test, I think about how poorly I am doing compared
Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), and one question with other students”) and an emotionality
about their test-taking ability rated on a Likert-type component ( “I feel my heart beating fast when I take
scale. Students then completed the first of five an exam”) (Pintrich et al., 1991, p. 13).
examinations given that semester. Each examination The additional question to assess test-taking
contained 75 five-option, multiple-choice items. All ability, developed by the first author, was “How
items were equally weighted, and test scores were good of a test taker do you think you are compared
reported as a percent correct. The test items were to others?” The response scale was a Likert-type
taken from the test bank that accompanies the scale from 1 to 5 (not good at all, poor, good, very
textbook, The Developing Person through the Life good, excellent). This question provided
Span, 6th edition by Berger (2005). Tests in both information about students’ self-efficacy beliefs
sections were identical, with the exception of three specific to their test-taking skills. This item is

Fall 2013 30 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 SELF-EFFICACY, TEST ANXIETY, AND SELF-REPORTED TEST-TAKING ABILITY: HOW DO
THEY DIFFER BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS?
virtually a duplication of that used in Morse and Therefore, the data were judged satisfactory for
Morse (1993). further analysis.
Data Analysis Examination performance groups were
The primary data analysis to address the compared on the set of three measures (i.e., self-
research question was a one-way MANOVA, efficacy, exam anxiety, and test-taking efficacy) via
comparing the two achievement groups (i.e., MANOVA. A statistically significant result was
independent variable: high- and low-achieving obtained, Wilks’ lambda = .68, χ2(3, N = 47) =
students) on the three dependent variables (i.e., self- 15.93, p = .001. Thus, group membership explained
efficacy score from MSLQ, test anxiety score from 32% of total score variance in the set of measures.
MSLQ, and test-taking skill, as a single score). Multivariately, high-performing students had a
Assumptions of multivariate normality and discriminant function mean of 0.60 (SD = 1.04),
homogeneity of covariance matrices were checked whereas low-performing students had a mean of -
prior to the statistical tests. Additionally, we 0.75 (SD = 0.94), which corresponded to a Cohen d
screened the data to assure that multicollinearity was of 1.35, representing a high degree of separation of
not present in the dependent variables, and that the centroids.
relationships were linear in form. In the event of a To characterize better the differences from the
statistically significant difference, we would follow multivariate perspective, we performed a
up the MANOVA with a discriminant analysis, to discriminant analysis and examined the standardized
clarify way(s) in which the two achievement groups discriminant function coefficients. Self-efficacy and
differed. A statistical result was considered as test-taking skill were approximately equally
statistically significant if p < .05. weighted in the function (0.66 and 0.69,
respectively), whereas exam anxiety was weighted
Results somewhat lower (0.40). Further, structure
Students who scored 0.5 SD higher than the coefficients affirm that self-efficacy and test-taking
overall mean on their five multiple-choice skill scores corresponded well with the linear
examinations (M = 79.2, SD = 9.5, N = 76) were composite (r = .74 and .72, respectively), whereas
identified as high achieving (this threshold was a test exam anxiety scores did not (r = .04). Principally,
mean above 83.8%) (M = 89.1, SD = 3.8, n = 25), the ways in which the two exam groups differed
and those students who scored lower than -0.5 SD were in self-efficacy and test-taking skill, and not in
were identified as low achieving (test mean below exam anxiety. Examining the variables
74.2%) (M = 66.7, SD = 5.8, n = 20). individually, high-performing students tended to
In testing the assumption of multivariate have higher levels of both self-efficacy (Cohen’s d
normality for the MANOVA, Mardia’s test statistics = 1.00) and perceived test-taking skill (d = 0.97)
for multivariate skewness and kurtosis were than did low-performing students, whereas no
computed separately for both the high-performing salient differences were present on exam anxiety (d
and low-performing groups. In neither set was = 0.05). Overall, the resultant multivariate model
there any cause for concern for violation of worked well to distinguish cases. Using a leave-one-
multivariate normality (all ps > .30). Box’s M test, out method, the model classified 80% of high-
to evaluate the homogeneity of variance-covariance performing students and 70% of low-performing
matrices assumption, yielded no indication of any students accurately, for an overall accuracy of 76%,
violation, p = .46. No instance of excessive well above chance level. Although a new data
collinearity among the measures was observed (no sample would offer stronger evidence for result
|r| > .50), nor did inspection of casement scatter plots generalizability, the leave-one-out result was
indicate concerns about problems with linearity. suggestive that the model worked well when applied
to cases not used in its generation.

Table 1

Summary Statistics by Group on Test Performance, Self-Efficacy, Exam Anxiety, and Test-taking Skill
Correct M % Self-Efficacy M % Exam Anxiety M % Test-taking Skill M %
Exam Score Group (SD %) (SD %) (SD %) (SD %)

High (n = 25) 89.1 (3.8) 6.0 (0.7) 3.7 (1.4) 3.6 (0.6)
Low (n = 20) 66.7 (5.8) 5.3 (0.7) 3.6 (1.5) 3.0 (0.7)

Total (N = 76) 79.2 (9.5) 5.7 (0.8) 3.8 (1.4) 3.3 (0.6)
Note: Means are given, standard deviations are in parentheses.

Fall 2013 31 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 JASNA VUK AND DAVID T. MORSE

Discussion more test anxiety while taking a test in their own

The research question in this study concerned major when they compete with students in their own
differences between high- and low-achieving group, as has been reported in studies on test anxiety
students on self-efficacy, test anxiety, and self- with gifted students (Goetz et al., 2008). In
reported test-taking ability. The results were that contrast, self-reported test-taking ability, which may
high- and low-achieving students significantly be characterized as a specific component of self-
differed on the self-efficacy subscale of the MSLQ efficacy, differed between high- and low-achieving
and on self-reported test-taking ability. Differences students. Self-reported test-taking ability in the
between high- and low-achieving students on self- present study corresponded to differences in
efficacy were mostly similar to findings in other examination performance in a way comparable to
studies (Burlison et al., 2009; Hsieh et al., 2007). that of self-efficacy. A simple item to assess
One distinction of our findings, in comparison to students’ self-reported test-taking ability could be a
Burlison et al. (2009), is that we observed that a useful predictor of students’ academic
correspondence was present of self-efficacy and performances, especially in classes where multiple-
achievement for both high- and low-performing choice examinations are the main or sole assessment
students. We consider that the item asking about method.
test-taking ability in this study represented an aspect Our results were that test anxiety might not be
of test-taking self-efficacy; therefore, significant as detrimental or strongly related to test performance
differences between high- and low-achieving as suggested by previous research (Chappel et al.,
students were expected. 2005). We are uncertain whether this result is
A discrepant outcome was that low-achieving specific to the present study, or would replicate. For
students did not perceive any higher test anxiety those persons interested in predicting test
than did high-achieving students, unlike the reports performance, further research on test anxiety of
of others (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Pintrich et al., high- and low-achieving students would be
1993; Seipp, 1991). This outcome could be beneficial, especially in relation to students’ self-
explained by a large range of student performance assessment capability and metacognitive ability.
on course examinations. High-achieving students, Recommendations for future study include
might simply have perceived the examinations to be incorporating study designs to help determine
easy; their mean score was nearly 90% correct whether achievement experiences bring about
across all tests. However, low-achieving students, changes in self-efficacy, or whether the influence is
even though their perceived self-efficacy was lower exclusively in the direction of self-efficacy level
than that for the high-achieving students, still might explaining differences in achievement. A way to
have been less accurate in assessing their own skills investigate this determination would be to measure
and that could potentially lead to an artificially low self-efficacy before and after examinations,
level of test anxiety (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, especially over new or novel content, which could
Dunning, & Kruger, 2008). The point at which also have an impact on students’ preparation for
students completed the test anxiety measure in our subsequent examinations. Another way to track the
study, which was before the first examination, might impact of test experience on self-efficacy would be
have influenced the results, because students had not to match a level of test difficulty with the group of
yet seen their first examination in the course. Of students in a self-efficacy range on multiple
course, it is possible that the magnitude of difference occasions. For example, a low-challenging test
on test anxiety is small, and that the sample size used could be matched with a low self-efficacy group of
was insufficient to detect statistically dependable students, and a high-challenging test with the group
differences. However, the issue then would arise of of high self-efficacy students, as well as using mis-
how large a degree of test anxiety would have to be matched sets. Finally, it is important to note some of
in order to be educationally important. Debilitating the limitations present in the study.
levels of test anxiety would obviously be a concern, We conducted the study using two sections of
but our data do not suggest that the scores were at one undergraduate class comprising a wide variety
such a level. of majors. The class was an elective for many
Another possible explanation for the absence students, which is a factor possibly affecting the
of differences on the test-anxiety subscale of the study results. A study of students within their own
MSLQ between high- and low-achieving students is major on a pivotal course related to the major could
that students might not have perceived the testing make differences more visible. Other limitations
situation as competitive (Bonaccio & Reeve, 2010). include participants being predominantly female—
Many students from highly competitive majors such although this situation is typical of courses taught
as pre-medicine, kinesiology, and engineering took within a school of education—the use of single
the course as their behavioral science elective and measures of self-efficacy, test-taking ability, and
perhaps did not judge the material to be difficult, or test anxiety, and the timing of the test anxiety
the course as a high-stakes class for their future measure in the data collection cycle, and the small
academic success. These students might experience sample size.

Fall 2013 32 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 SELF-EFFICACY, TEST ANXIETY, AND SELF-REPORTED TEST-TAKING ABILITY: HOW DO
THEY DIFFER BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS?
Finally, for educators, we believe that the performance. Contemporary Educational
results of the study underscore the importance of Psychology, 27, 270-295.
attending to college students’ self-efficacy and test- doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
taking skill because these characteristics do appear Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M.
to differ dependably across achievement levels. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A.,
Nearly one half a century ago, Millman, Bishop, and & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and
Ebel (1965) recommended that students be given academic performance in undergraduate
training in how to take tests. The reason was simple, and graduate students. Journal of
but profound: so that users of test scores would have Educational Psychology, 97, 268-274.
more accurate information about examinee doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268
proficiency, and carry less noise due to differences Chemers, M. M., Hu L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001).
in test-taking ability (“test-wiseness”). Given the Academic self-efficacy and first year
relationship of achievement level to test-taking skill college student performance and
found here, that recommendation appears still to be adjustment. Journal of Educational
worth careful consideration. Psychology, 93, 55-64. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.93.1.55
The lead editors for this article were John R. Slate Cohen, M., Ben-Zur, H., & Rosenfeld, M. J.
and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. (2008). Sense of coherence, coping
References strategies and test anxiety as predictors of
test performance among college students.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a International Journal of Stress
unifying theory of change, Psychological Management, 15, 289-303.
Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033- doi:10.1037/1072-5245.15.3.289
295X.84.2.191 Devonport, T. J., & Lane, A. M. (2006).
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of Relationship between self-efficacy, coping
anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 77-98. and student retention. Social Behavior and
doi:10.1080/10615808808248222 Personality: An International Journal, 34,
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social 127-138. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.127
cognitive theory. American Psychologist, Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning,
44, 1175-1184. doi:10.1037/0003- D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled
066X.44.9.1175 are unaware: Further explorations of
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in (absent) self-insight among the
cognitive development and functioning. incompetent. Organizational Behavior and
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Human Decision Processes, 105, 98-121.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.05.002
Berger, K. (2005). The developing person Goetz, T., Preckel, F., Zeidner, M., & Schleyer,
through the life span (6th ed.). New York, E. (2008). Big fish in big ponds: A
NY: Worth Publishers. multilevel analysis of test anxiety and
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Test anxiety and achievement in special gifted classes.
academic delay of gratification. College Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21, 185-198.
Student Journal, 43(1), 10-21. doi:10.1080/10615800701628827
Bonaccio, S., & Reeve, C. L. (2010). The nature Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a
and importance of students’ perceptions of predictor of college outcomes: Two
the sources of test anxiety. Learning and incremental validity studies. Journal of
Individual Differences, 20, 617-625. Career Assessment, 14, 92-115.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.09.007 doi:10.1177/1069072705281367
Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self- Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007).
efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment, A closer look at college students: Self-
and academic performance. Journal of efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 89, 431-438. Advanced Academics, 18, 454-476.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2011.tb02840.x doi:10.4219/jaa-2007-500
Burlison, J. D., Murphy, C. S., & Dwyer, W. O. Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., Sass, D. A., & Guerra,
(2009). Evaluation of the Motivated N. S. (2012). Undergraduate engineering
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire for students’ beliefs, coping strategies, and
predicting academic performance in academic performance: An evaluation of
college students of varying scholastic theoretical models. The Journal of
aptitude. College Student Journal, 43, Experimental Education, 80, 196-218.
1313-1323. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson. R. E. (2002). behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York,
Cognitive test anxiety and academic NY: Holt.

Fall 2013 33 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

 JASNA VUK AND DAVID T. MORSE

Lynch, D. J. (2006). Motivational factors, (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological

learning strategies and resource Measurement, 53, 801-813.
management as predictors of course doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
grades. College Student Journal, 40, 423- Putwain, D. W., Connors, L., & Symes, W.
428. (2010). Do cognitive distortions mediate
Lynch, D. J. (2010). Motivational beliefs and the test anxiety–examination performance
learning strategies as predictors of relationship? Educational Psychology: An
academic performance in college physics. International Journal of Experimental
College Student Journal, 44, 920-927. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 11-26.
Mattern, K. D., & Shaw, E. J. (2010). A look doi:10.1080/01443410903328866
beyond cognitive predictors of academic Putwain, D. S., & Derek, P. L. (2013). Academic
success: Understanding the relationship self-efficacy in study-related skills and
between academic self-beliefs and behaviors. Relations with learning-related
outcomes. Journal of College Student emotions and academic success. British
Development, 51, 665-678. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
doi:10.1353/csd.2010.0017 663-650.
Millman, J., Bishop, C. H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02084.x
analysis of test-wiseness. Educational and Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic
Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 707- performance: A meta-analysis of findings.
726. Anxiety Research, 4(1), 27-41.
Morse, D. T., & Morse, L. W. (1993, November). doi:10.1080/08917779108248762
An exploratory study of the relationship of Williams, J. E. (1996). Gender-related worry
test-wiseness, answer-changing, and test and emotionality test anxiety for high-
performance. Paper presented at the annual achieving students. Psychology in the
conference of the Mid-South Educational Schools, 33, 159-162.
Research Association, New Orleans, LA. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). Test
(1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to anxiety in intellectually gifted school
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic students. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 12,
investigation. Journal of Counseling 163-189.
Psychology, 38, 30-38. doi:10.1037/0022- doi:10.1080/10615809908248328
0167.38.1.30 Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in view of self-regulated academic learning.
academic settings. Review of Educational Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
Research, 66, 543-578. 329-339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Phan, H. P. (2010). Students’ academic
performance and various cognitive
processes of learning: An integrative
framework and empirical analysis.
Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, 30, 297-322.
doi:10.1080/01443410903573297
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990).
Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., &
McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the
use of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). (Tech.
Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., &
McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and
predictive validity of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Fall 2013 34 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.