## 3 Results
### MANCOVA Results  
The results of the MANCOVA showed the significant difference of attention span and executive function. A 2 \(\times\) 2 \(\times\) 2 between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on four dependent variables: the post-test scores of D-CAT and SAT (for attention span), and the post-test scores of TMT-A and TMT-B (for executive function), after controlling for pre-test scores. Independent variables are levels of difficulty (with and without), pressure (with and without), and competition (with and without). Assumptions of normality, and the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, were evaluated. The Box's M result showed 159.77, which indicates that the homogeneity of covariance matrices across groups is assumed (F (70, 1401.94) = 1.25, \(p\) = 0.084). The linearity and multicollinearity were satisfactory. For multivariate tests, after controlling for pre-test scores, with the use of Wilks' Lambda criterion, the combined dependent variables were significantly different in terms of levels of difficulty (Wilk's Lambda \(\Lambda\) = 0.06, F (4, 25) = 106.95, \(p\) < 0.001, partial \(\eta\)2 = 0.95), and pressure (Wilk's Lambda \(\Lambda\) = 0.07, F (4, 25) = 85.29, \(p\) < 0.001, partial \(\eta\)2 = 0.93), and not significant in terms of competition (Wilk's Lambda \(\Lambda\) = 0.81, F (4, 25) = 1.44, \(p\) > 0.05, partial \(\eta\)2 = 0.19). Additionally, there was a significant interaction effect of difficulty and pressure (Wilk's Lambda \(\Lambda\) = 0.22, F (4, 25) = 22.77, \(p\) < 0.001, and partial \(\eta\)2 = 0.79) (Table 23). Figure 14: The graph of three-factor interaction in TMT-B. Figure (**A**) shows the interaction of pre/post-test * difficulty with pressure condition; Figure (**B**) shows the interaction of pre/post-test * difficulty without pressure condition. Note: pre/post-test (the horizontal axis), pre-test = 1, and post-test = 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Effect** & **Value** & **F** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Hypothesis** \\ **df** \\ \end{tabular} & **Error df** & **Sig.** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Partial** \\ **Eta** \\ **Squared** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Difficulty & 0.06 & 106.95 & 4 & 25 & 0.000 *** & 0.95 \\ Pressure & 0.07 & 85.29 & 4 & 25 & 0.000 *** & 0.93 \\ Competition & 0.81 & 1.44 & 4 & 25 & 0.251 & 0.19 \\ Difficulty * Pressure & 0.22 & 22.77 & 4 & 25 & 0.000 *** & 0.79 \\ Difficulty * Competition & 0.90 & 0.73 & 4 & 25 & 0.58 & 0.11 \\ Pressure * Competition & 0.834 & 1.24 & 4 & 25 & 0.32 & 0.17 \\ Difficulty * Pressure * Competition & 0.82 & 1.34 & 4 & 25 & 0.28 & 0.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: *** \(p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 23: Multivariate tests (Wilks’ lambda). [PERSON]'s test of equality of error variances showed that all four assessment post-test scores were not significant \(p>0.05\). A non-significant result indicates it had met the assumption of homogeneity of variance (Table 24). Four tests of between-subjects effects showed that there was statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)) in difficulty factor, pressure factor, and the interaction effect of difficulty and pressure on four dependent variables (D-CAT, SAT, TMT-A, and TMT-B post-test scores). Additionally, there was an interaction effect of difficulty and pressure, and competition was shown to be statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) on one dependent variable (SAT) but not significant in any other assessment tests (D-CAT, TMT-A, and TMT-B) (Table 25).