Talk:Test anxiety

message: As a copyvio issue, I marked tihs page with the  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).  Mangojuicetalk 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: 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)
thread_title: Broken link

message: "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  The multiple consecutive studies are not peer-reviewed or published in any journals.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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: advertisements

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Garrondo! CogPsyProf (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems and clean up of the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Working memory section to talk page

message: @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)
thread_title: Problems with layout in recent edits within school project

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with sources in recent edits within school project

message: 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.Revlin, Russell. Cognition: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Worth, 2013. Print. 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 situationsJones, L., & Petruzzi, D. C. (1995). Test anxiety: A review of theory and current treatment. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 10(1), 3-15. doi:10.1300/J035v10n01_02. 
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.Ibid. Both are aversive elements that can create anxiety, but it is the cognitive factors that have the strongest connection to performance.Szafranski, D. D., Barrera, T. L., & Norton, P. J. (2012). Test Anxiety Inventory: 30 years later. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 25(6), 667-677. doi:10.1080/10615806.2012.663490 
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.Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 92-104. doi:10.1037/h0031332 These negative factors consume a person’s attention with what is referred to as task-irrelevant activity.Jones, L., & Petruzzi, D. C. (1995). Test anxiety: A review of theory and current treatment. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 10(1), 3-15. doi:10.1300/J035v10n01_02 
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.Revlin, Russell. Cognition: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Worth, 2013. Print.
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 testingIbid..  
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.Baddeley, A. (2013). Working Memory and Emotion: Ruminations on a Theory of Depression. Review of General Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0030029 
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.Revlin, Russell. Cognition: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Worth, 2013. Print. 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.Mowbray, T. (2012). Working memory, test anxiety and effective interventions: A review. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 29(2), 141-156. doi:10.1017/edp.2012.16  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.Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168-176. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168
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.Ibid.  Specifically anxiety affects the attentional control aspect of the central executive and its inhibition and attentional shifting functions.Mowbray, T. (2012). Working memory, test anxiety and effective interventions: A review. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 29(2), 141-156. doi:10.1017/edp.2012.16  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.Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168-176. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168
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 memoryJohnson, D. R., & Gronlund, S. D. (2009). Individuals lower in working memory capacity are particularly vulnerable to anxiety’s disruptive effect on performance. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 22(2), 201-213. doi:10.1080/10615800802291277.  Further research has found that participants with both lower working memory capacity and high test anxiety made more errors.Tse, C., & Pu, X. (2012). The effectiveness of test-enhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 253-264. doi:10.1037/a0029190.
Interventions Using Working Memory Related Techniques:
One cognitive intervention that has been shown to be effective at reducing anxiety is attentional cognitive bias modification.MacLeod, C., and Mathews, A. (2012).  Cognitive Bias Modification Approaches to Anxiety.  Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 189-217.  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.Mowbray, T. (2012). Working memory, test anxiety and effective interventions: A review. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 29(2), 141-156. doi:10.1017/edp.2012.16  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.Baddeley, A. (2013). Working Memory and Emotion: Ruminations on a Theory of Depression. Review of General Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0030029  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.Mowbray, T. (2012). Working memory, test anxiety and effective interventions: A review. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 29(2), 141-156. doi:10.1017/edp.2012.16  
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.Ibid.  
References
Erin122 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Erin and Amanda! I must admit I have only glanced through your proposal, but I have a couple of remarks. 
* Please don't use textbook-like sentences such as: "As you are reading this page". It is not "encyclopedic". 
* Also, please, please never ever use "ibid" as a reference. Other editors come along, add and remove text and before you know it, nobody knows what "ibid" refers to. If you don't know how to make double references, just copy the whole reference once more, so at least it is clear which reference you mean. 
* Please add page numbers of the books you have used. 
* interpunction: first . then the reference (for instance: ...at hand.Mowbray, T. (2012). Working memory, test anxiety and effective interventions: A review. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 29(2), 141-156. doi:10.1017/edp.2012.16 )
* Please create subsections for more clarity
* Use wikilinks for "difficult terms" such as central executive
* Finally, please don't be discouraged by this list of remarks! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the feedback Lova Falk. We will make the corrections you have suggested, and are currently working on revising our entry to reflect some more up to date research. We are exploring more topic-specific research that better explains the connection between working memory and test anxiety/ performance. We have decided not to make a separate page, but instead to add a working memory section to this page, with relevant subsections. The changes will be made this week, as our final entry is due on April 19th. Thanks again for taking the time to help us out! AmandaSilver15 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section for Working Memory and Test Anxiety 

message: Our class project for Cognitive Psychology has been peer edited, and looked at by our professor. We will move it into the main space tomorrow, but we are open to feedback before we do so. Thank you. Erin122 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Final draft ready to move to main space

message: First of all let me praise you for the choice of references you have made: most of them are high quality secondary sources which are great for use in wikipedia. Well done!!! However you have several problems with ref citations in the test anxiety article, the most important one that every time you add a citation to the same ref you create a separate ref. You can take a look to the articles or talk to some of your class mates such as the authors of the deep dyslexia article to learn how to fix this (I do not have time at the moment to explain, altough I will try later)
I have also found several writting-style problems in which the authors draw their own conclussions without an specific source, in an essay-like tone. These are mild cases of WP:NOR and should be either eliminated, reformatted or included with a source that specifically draws that conclussions. It is incorrect to draw any conclussions from primary sources unless they are estated as such in them (and even in such cases with great care). I have tagged most of the problems with a  tag, although in many of them it would be more interesting to simply eliminate those sentences.
===Other format problems===
Examples from other articles, but issues apply
*Bolding: there is a specific style wikipedia guideline (See WP:MOS) which is overly specific and detailed and boring for recent editors. It has a section on bolding (See WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface). In summary, bolding is only occassionally used in Wikipedia. All in-text bolding should be removed.
*References should be after the sentence and not before the full stop (e.g forcing reading to proceed through the semantic route [2]. should be changed to forcing reading to proceed through the semantic route.[2]), and same occurs with other punctuation marks such as commas (e.g  change be a more severe form of phonological dyslexia[8][9][10] to  be a more severe form of phonological dyslexia;[8][9][10])
*Titles of sections: should be in sentence case (only first word with starting capital letter)
===On a side note===
*Automatic citations: You might not know that you can automatically create references from scientific journals by inserting the pubmed number (pmid) or digital object identifier (doi): go to the editing toolbar, click cite, click templates, click cite journal and insert either of the two identifiers in its appropiate place, and voila!: you have your citation. It has the advantage that it reduces errors (although it is better checking since sometimes it makes some mistakes) and also gives a link to the article abstract direcly when you go with the mouse over the inline citation or at the reference at the end of an article. For example in the case of Jones-1985- article Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication just by inserting its doi (10.1016/0093-934X(85)90094-X), obtained from either pubmed (pmid:3971130 see  or the publishing house abstract to the article (See ) I get (in this case using doi):. You might notice that gives an error in the year that you can easily fix and have:. I am not sure if I have explained myself adequately but these kind of things make editing muuuuuuuuuuuch easier, so if you did not really understood my explanation please ask.
--Garrondo (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with ref format and other required improvements

message: *Automatic citations: You might not know that you can automatically create references from scientific journals by inserting the pubmed number (pmid) or digital object identifier (doi): go to the editing toolbar, click cite, click templates, click cite journal and insert either of the two identifiers in its appropiate place, and voila!: you have your citation. It has the advantage that it reduces errors (although it is better checking since sometimes it makes some mistakes) and also gives a link to the article abstract direcly when you go with the mouse over the inline citation or at the reference at the end of an article. For example in the case of Jones-1985- article Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication just by inserting its doi (10.1016/0093-934X(85)90094-X), obtained from either pubmed (pmid:3971130 see  or the publishing house abstract to the article (See ) I get (in this case using doi):. You might notice that gives an error in the year that you can easily fix and have:. I am not sure if I have explained myself adequately but these kind of things make editing muuuuuuuuuuuch easier, so if you did not really understood my explanation please ask.
--Garrondo (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: On a side note

message: I have eliminated all discussion of Baddeleys model: while it is an important model the details it includes were not discussed in any other place in the article, so they are actually irrelevant. See WP:fork. It should be enough to have a line with a link towards the model. --Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure about that. I'll see what I'll do... Lova Falk talk 05:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on Baddeleys model is back - even though somewhat shorter than before. Garrondo, please check if you think it should be expanded... 	 Lova Falk talk 08:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section eliminated

message: "Highly test-anxious students score about 12 percentile points below their low anxiety peers."
Does this statistic adjust for various factors (such as skill), or is this just the raw data? Please clarify. 78.100.168.220 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 percentile below their peers