Talk:Test anxiety

Copyvio

As a copyvio issue, I marked tihs page with the {{copyvio}} tag. However, in my opinion the topic of Test anxiety is one probably worth covering in Wikipedia, so I removed the prod (normally, I would leave the prod and add the copyvio tag if both apply). Mangojuice^talk 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The only issuse is that it's copied from a blog that isn't copyright protected. So, it's not a copy-vio, but just a copy and paste. If it was copied of, say, MTV, then we would have a copy-vio issue. Yanksox ^(talk) 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that copyright needs not be asserted - it's automatic unelss disclaimed. Permission must be explcitly given to wikimedia per Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the copy-and-paste part of "Accomodations" (see PMID: 9213292) - but haven't checked the rest... If there's more copy-and-paste, someone should delete this article... -- Robodoc.at (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

http://campus.umr.edu/counsel/selfhelp/vpl/testanxiety.htm was broken, and changing umr.edu to mst.edu left it still broken. Charvest (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

advertisements

"A recent "accelerated" anxiety-reduction protocol shows promise, having produced substantial anxiety reduction and significant test gains in multiple consecutive studies. Components include vigorous physical involvement, test-adaptive imagery, and counter-conditioning."

All the links just go to www.testanxietycontrol.com which is selling this "accelerated" method. It also uses wording straight from that website, including "accelerated" and "substantial anxiety-reduction". The multiple consecutive studies are not peer-reviewed or published in any journals. It doesn't seem to be sourced correctly in the first place. I'm a little rusty on the rules of Wikipedia but I'm pretty sure none of this belongs in this article. I'm going to delete it for now, feel free to argue for it's inclusion or change it so it fits the rules(if that's even possible). Five- (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Complimentary therapies such as Emotional Alignment therapy "[1]" may help some sufferers." Here's another one I removed, it just links to a website selling "Emotional Alignment Therapy". If it may help some sufferers, it needs to be sourced. If you search for the term "Emotional Alignment therapy" in quotes on Google's search engine you get 198 results, but nothing resembling a reliable source. Five- (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the article and the edit history, it would seem a good portion of the recent changes were done by DrD001. Looking at his talk page and the Revision history for Panic Attack, there is a theme to his edits. I'm guessing, DrD001, that you are either Richard Driscoll or someone associated with him? DrD001 added many links to www.testanxietycontrol.com on this article, which has Driscoll's name and picture at the bottom. He also added www.amtaa.org, the website for "American Test Anxiety Association" which lists Driscoll as it's Programs Director and advertises the same product as testanxietycontrol.com. He also added stuff to this article about the "Westside Test Anxiety Scale Validation" which was created by none other than Driscoll. On the Panic Attack article he tried to add links to www.peacewithmyself.com which is, again, owned by the same guy and links to the previous sites. Because of this, I have removed all material mentioning any of these sites or the concepts they are trying to sell. This is original research and against Wikipedia's rules, not to mention the other various rules that are broken. I looked through the stuff and none of studies are published or peer-reviewed anyways, so even if it wasn't an advertisement ploy or original research by the author, it's not a reliable source. I left an external link to amtaa.org since it's a little relevant to the article. Five- (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive Psychology Project

As part of a class on Cognitive Psychology at Davidson College, we were assigned to edit a Wikipedia page related to our course material. We plan to incorporate up-to-date studies and peer reviewed literature on test anxiety, in relation to working memory.

Our next step involves deciding whether to edit the current page's section on working memory, or creating a new page. We value your opinion in regards to this matter. We are looking at the relationship between working memory and test errors. We are also looking at important variables such as stereotype threat, attention, achievement goals, and cultural difference. AmandaSilver15 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Erin122 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have commented in several of your companion projects. I would say that it is better to create a new section in this article since I do not think there is enough content to create a new page. Additionally: after a fast check of this article I see many sections with problems. For example the section causes is a "how to guide" without references of any kind which would benefit of a copy-edit, references, etc. Anxiety response and symptoms have a lot of overlap and could be combined, whereas the "power of working memory" is a worse as it can be with only one reference, crappy self-help type content, and also some smell of copyright problems... In summary this article would probably benefit more from some elimination and clean up of its content by adding new sources than from adding lots of new content. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Garrondo, thank you so much for your helpful feedback. We plan to align our revision with the goals of this assignment as dictated by our professor. If it is at all helpful, here is our course page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Davidson_College/Cognitive_Psychology_(2013_Q1). We are currently looking into how we will incorporate specific peer-reviewed articles, as well as secondary and review sources into the working memory section. Thanks! AmandaSilver15 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Erin122 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Keep me (and everybody else) posted by commenting any advances here. That way you will probably get to better results and also a much more rewarding wikipedia experience. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amanda and Erin! Please, avoid as much as you can WP:primary sources - use secondary and tertiary sources instead! Lova Falk talk 09:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. We are relying mostly on review sources instead of primary source studies, and have an initial outline for our new section on Working Memory.

• Introduction: a few sentences summarizing the overall concept
• Brief background on working memory
• Brief background on test anxiety
• Theories using Working Memory (Attentional Control Theory)
• Interventions using WMC techniques

AmandaSilver15 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC) and Erin122 (talk)

Amanda&Ering: Thanks for the feedback. Communications is very helpful here. It would be great if you could add the sources you are planning to use (as most of your class mates have done). It will help to have a grasp on what you are planning to do. Also: Do your sources explicitly link working memory and test anxiety and its treatments? Finally, I would say that since the article is not in very good shape (lots of unreferenced or poorly referenced sections, original research, etc) it would be great if instead of adding lots of content you also used the sources you already have to improve the current estate of the article. We will continue talking with your progresses.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems and clean up of the article

I have just checked the management section and it is a clear infrigement of copyright. Really close paraprhasing of the source. Additionally its tone was completely un-encyclopedic (How to guide, self-help book tone), and poorly referenced (to a website of a patient association). I have eliminated the section completely and retitled the "reduction" section to management.

I have also moved the "contributing factors" section to the causes section and moved management into a subsection of treatment

I have separated section on casues and signs and symptoms.

I hope this editions make easier edits by the class project.

--Garrondo (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Garrondo! CogPsyProf (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Working memory section to talk page

I am moving section on working memory to talk page since it had so many problems that it was mostly useless. It was only based on a single book, with some "self promotion" tone. Moreover there is no indication that this book or theory was notable enought to merit so much content. It also lacked any kind of wikipedia format. If this content is to be re-formatted and re-inserted in the article it will need a complete rewritting, and use of better references.

I Forgot to sign:--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Power of Working Memory

The cognitive component of test anxiety is widely believed to have a negative impact on test performance through occupying working memory space. When a student is worrying about failing the test or not having the correct answer to a question, they are using up valuable working memory space in the brain. This leaves less space for the working memory to remember facts and concepts that were learned. Therefore, the student is more likely to perform worse in high stress situations. Sian Beilock is the author of the book “Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to.” She examines why people who do well in practice, but “choke” in stressful situations. She says our “working memory plays an important role in most of what we do on a daily basis” Remembering a phone number or navigating while driving, all involve working memory processes. The amount of working memory a person has (it varies among individuals) often predicts how well they will perform in activities that are imperative for academic success (i.e. problem solving and reading comprehension). Surprisingly, high-powered students have been found to perform at the level of low-powered students when under pressure. So why do students with the most working memory fail under pressure? Beilock found that under low-stress conditions, high-working memory individuals are likely to go through all the steps required in order to problem solve because they have the high cognitive power needed to compute answers this way. On the other hand, individuals with lower working memory were likely to rely on shortcuts to answer similar questions, which don’t require a lot of effort and are essentially no better than good guesses. Under pressure however, the majority of high powered- students were found to panic and switch to the short cuts that low power students normally use. When a student experiences test anxiety, the anxiety they are feeling takes up valuable working memory space, preventing an individual from accessing their full problem solving approaches. Sometimes they end up taking “short cuts” or making guesses which leads to poorer test performance when it counts the most.

Problems with layout in recent edits within school project

@SteveREBT, I notice that you have began to edit the article. I have found several problems with your citation system. I'll try to explain myself and help you to improve layout in future edits.

The main problem is how you have added several different references inside a single inline citation. In the second case maaaaaany references inside one. Most commonly different references go in different citations. I imagine that this is your way to try to cite several times the same reference without repeating it. There is an easy way to do this, but it is not how you did it. You can find how to do it in one of the leaflets linking from the course page, specifically the Referencing: Wikicode handout. It explains there how to cite multiple times the same reference. I have corrected the first citation.Please correct the second one in the same way.

Moreover: while I have found the citation for Cassidy, there is no citation in the article with a McDonald in it so I have eliminated it.

--Garrondo (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with sources in recent edits within school project

Preliminary note: What I am going to recommend is wikipedia policy on sources, which your teacher has assured me that has been explained in class. Specifically secondary sources (reviews or meta-analysis in peer-reviewed journals or advanced manuasl for professionals) should be used instead of primary sources (experiments in peer reviewed journals). I know that following this rule most of the sources in this article are not really valid: this is a truth in wikipedia, what should be is not in many cases what one founds. This, however is no reason for you using secondary sources and even improving the ones used in the article.

I have taken a look at the sources inserted (the two that I corrected: Cassidy 2001 and Hembree 1988). None of them are ideal sources.

Cassidy 2001: From what I can see it is a primary article in which a measure of school anxiety is presented. This is CLEARLY NOT a valid reference since it is a primary one.

Hembree 1988: is a metaanalisis. Therefore it is a secondary source, and could be very valid. My main concern is the age of the source. I would rather have a newer ref if you find one, although is muuuuuuuuuch better than Cassidy 2001.

I hope that from now on you select high quality SECONDARY sources.

Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought that this additions were related to university psychology project. I was yesterday corrected on this issue and on the fact that SteveREBT editions are not connected to the students of Davidson project. While comments to SteveREBT still apply and might be useful to editors from Davidson project I am sorry for my mistake and any inconveniences it has created. --Garrondo (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New section for Working Memory and Test Anxiety

Here is the first draft for the new article that will link to this page, which we have entitled "Test Anxiety and Working Memory." This is part of our cognitive psychology class project, as we noted in our earlier plan submissions. We appreciate all feedback, but please note that this draft will be peer reviewed by classmates within the next week and is not yet final. Working memory is essential for understanding the phenomenon of test anxiety. Working memory is a limited capacity system, so the addition of stress and anxiety reduce the resources available to focus on relevant information . By identifying cognitive interventions, it is possible to reverse the effects of test anxiety.

Test Anxiety

The goal of most testing situations is to measure a person’s level of knowledge or skill in a particular area. If the testing situation itself becomes a factor in that person’s ability to reach optimal achievement, there can be negative consequences, especially if certain groups are disproportionally affected. Test Anxiety refers to impaired performance created by feelings of stress and discomfort in evaluative situations.

Liebert and Morris attributed this to two main components: worry and emotionality. Worry refers to cognitive factors, such as negative expectations or feelings of inadequacy. Emotionality is the physical symptoms, such as increased heart rate, muscle tension, or butterflies . Both are aversive elements that can create anxiety, but it is the cognitive factors that have the strongest connection to performance .

Numerous studies have suggested that highly test-anxious subjects describe themselves in more negative terms, report that they experience more performance related thoughts during an exam, and are generally more self-blaming and self-concerned than low-anxious subjects . These negative factors consume a person’s attention with what is referred to as task-irrelevant activity .

Working memory

It is important to understand the elements of working memory before connecting them to test anxiety. The model of working memory was developed to improve the understanding of the short-term memory system as originally proposed by psychologists Baddeley and Hitch. The central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer are the main mechanisms that work together to allow temporary storage and early processing of information. As indicated by the diagram, the central executive allocates attentional resources to other components. The phonological loop refers to the temporary storage of verbal information, and the visuospatial sketchpad is responsible for the storage of visual information. The episodic buffer integrates this information into a form that makes sense .

As you are reading this page, you are using many different elements of your working memory. Currently, your visuospatial sketchpad is helping you make sense of the spatial relationships between words, while the phonological loop is helping you verbalize the words in your head. This is possible with the help of the central executive, which guides your attention to the words on the page, and coordinates the other elements of your working memory. It also communicates with the episodic buffer, which keeps track of the information and combines it into coherent sentences. This is an example of a person’s working memory performing effectively, but these functions do not always perform their best under stressful situations, like testing.

Working Memory and Emotion

As discussed previously, people who suffer from test anxiety are more likely to experience negative cognitions while in evaluative situations. It is these thoughts and emotions that interfere with the central executive, and create distracting task-irrelevant activity. This is especially important because test anxious persons have been shown to bias their attention towards threatening and anxiety related stimuli more than nonemotional stimuli .

According to the attentional capture hypothesis, emotional stimuli are very difficult to tune out. They will often dominate a person’s thoughts, and any attempt to suppress them demands working memory resources . If the central executive is dividing resources between the aversive cognitions and the task-relevant material, the person’s ability to use the relevant information on a test will suffer.

Attentional Control Theory of Working Memory

A recent theory involving anxiety and working memory is the Attentional Control theory . Based on the earlier Processing Control Theory, this theory assumes that anxiety largely impairs the processing efficiency aspect of working memory rather than the performance effectiveness component. Processing efficiency refers to the amount of resources used to attain effective performance. Therefore, this theory suggests that students high in test anxiety will have to allocate more resources to the task at hand than non-test anxiety students in order to achieve the same results .

Attentional Control Theory also assumes that anxiety primarily affects functioning of the central executive component of working memory rather than the phonological loop or visuospatial sketchpad . Specifically anxiety affects the attentional control aspect of the central executive and its inhibition and attentional shifting functions . Attentional control is the balance between the two attentional systems, the goal-directed system and the stimulus-driven system. Research suggests that anxiety disrupts the balance between the two systems, therefore causing a reduction in the processing efficiency of the central executive .

Anxiety and Working Memory Capacity

There has been some research to support the theory that individuals with a high working memory capacity are somewhat buffered against the effects of performance anxiety. A study by Johnson and Gronlund found that individuals' performances on a task showed a significant decrease in accuracy when the participant had low or average working memory capacity, but did not significantly decrease when the participant had a high level of working memory. Further research has found that participants with both lower working memory capacity and high test anxiety made more errors .

Interventions Using Working Memory Related Techniques

One cognitive intervention that has been shown to be effective at reducing anxiety is attentional cognitive bias modification . The main method used for the intervention is a dot probe task. In this method, participants view negative and neutral stimuli on a screen and respond only to the neutral stimulus . This method attempts to overcome the attentional bias shown by high anxiety participants, who tend to focus on the more potent negative stimuli rather than the neutral stimuli . When participants are trained to focus on the neutral stimuli while ignoring the negative stimuli, working memory capacity is less strained and is available to place more focus on the task at hand .

Cognitive interventions in general do have many limitations. Some cognitive strategies have even been shown to be detrimental to performance, particularly strategies such as thought suppression. Only a small, recent body of research addresses cognitive interventions, and more research needs to be done to support these new techniques .

References

Erin122 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)AmandaSilver15 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)