UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of anxiety in school achievement Farmer, Ruth Alfreda 1962

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1962_A8 F2 R6.pdf [ 2.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105817.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105817-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105817-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105817-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105817-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105817-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105817-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105817-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105817.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE OF ANXIETY IN SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT by RUTH ALFREDA FARMER B:. A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1959 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS, i n the Department of Psychology ' We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1962 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allox^ed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. ABSTRACT Matched groups of Grade ¥1 p u p i l s obtaining low, medium, and high scores on the.Test Anxiety Scale f o r Children were compared on the basis of t h e i r perfor-mances on four school examinations to determine the extent and nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and school achievement* Analyses were made of the data pertaining to the performances of the boys and g i r l s together, and of the boys and g i r l s separately, on the four examina-tions, combined, and on each i n d i v i d u a l examination© Out of a t o t a l of 45 possible differences 6 were found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Results f o r the g i r l s were negative throughout but medium-anxious boys were found to do l e s s well than t h e i r low- and high-anxious mates on two of the four examinations© Groups of boys and g i r l s together showed differences s i m i l a r to the boys© S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences pointed to a nU" type c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n -ship between anxiety and - performance©. An analysis was also made of the power of each of the items on the anxiety scale to discriminate between high- and low-achievers© Twenty-nine of the t o t a l of 30 t e s t items f a i l e d to discriminate i n a s t a t i s t i -c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t way between high- and low-achievers© Findings suggest l i m i t a t i o n s to the use of i n d i -v i d u a l anxiety scores f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e or predictive purposes without further investigation© Revisions of a procedural nature were suggested as possible means of increasing the l i k e l i h o o d of obtaining more mean-i n g f u l r e s u l t s from an in v e s t i g a t i o n into the ef f e c t s of anxiety on performance© ACKNOWLEDGMENT Sincere thanks are extended to Mr. Harvey Mickleson, Supervisor, Special Education and Guidance Services, and Miss Verna Turner, Super-v i s o r , Department of Tests and Measurement, Greater V i c t o r i a School Board, and also to Pr i n c i p a l s Mr. George Love and Mr. Walter K i t l e y f o r t h e i r very h e l p f u l cooperation throughout the process of t h i s investigation*, The writer i s indeed most gr a t e f u l to her advisers Dr. E. Signori and Dr. W. H. Read without whose generous support and counsel there would have been no occasion to make t h i s acknowledgment. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter - Page I The Problem • • 1 II Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . 8 I I I Method , • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Selection and Grouping of Subjects . • • 16 Control of Variables . IS Measurements . . . • • • , 2 1 Analysis Procedure • • • • • • • • • • • 2 2 Summary • • • • • • • • • • • 2 3 IV Results . 25 Hypothesis I . 2 5 Hypothesis I I . . . • • • • 3 0 Hypothesis I I I • •...31 Discriminatory Power of TASG Items . . . 31 Summary • • . . . . . . . . 32 V Discussion . . . • . . . . . . . . • . • • 34 Significance of Positive Findings . . . 34 Suggested Revisions i n Procedure . . . . 36 V a l i d i t y of Anxiety Measure • • • • • • 40 Discriminatory Power of TASG Items . . . 42 Conclusions » . • • • • • • 4 4 Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • 46 VI References . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • « 48 Chapter I THE PROBLEM The research described i n t h i s * t h e s i s was undertaken i n the hope of gaining a d d i t i o n a l insight into the r o l e of anxiety i n determining the frequent discrepant rates at which school c h i l d r e n are able to achieve academically i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r assessed i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l i t y . Because the rate of a c h i l d ' s progress i n school i s i n large part dependent upon his performance i n a v a r i e t y of t e s t s i t u a t i o n s , examinations are l i k e l y to be per-ceived by the student to have an evaluative purpose and therefore to arouse fee l i n g s of anxiety. Anxiety so stimulated has been referred to by Sarason, Davidson, L i g h t h a l l , Waite and Ruebush (I960) as " t e s t " anxiety. The present study p r i n c i p a l l y deals with t h i s p a r t i c u l a r type of anxiety as, at varying l e v e l s of strength, i t a f f e c t s the school achievement of c h i l d r e n . I t i s a general practise within elementary schools to obtain p e r i o d i c a l l y a pupil's i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient. Such an assessment, i f not interpreted i n the l i g h t of other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which could be either f a c i l i t a t i n g or i n h i b i t i n g i n t h e i r e f f e c t , could lead to a miscon-ception of a chil d ' s a b i l i t y to achieve academically, and r e s u l t i n u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y high or low expectations 2 with regard to his l e v e l of performance. - The manner i n which a c h i l d i s approached i n a learning s i t u a t i o n can favorably or unfavorably a f f e c t his school performance, and attitudes based on misconceptions would be more l i k e l y to have the l a t t e r e f f e c t * Knowledge of a c h i l d * s consistent l e v e l of anxiety i n task situations would increase one's understanding of the c h i l d and his a b i l i t y to use his p o t e n t i a l , and would r e s u l t i n greater l i k e -lihood that the attitude taken toward the c h i l d would maximize rather than minimize his school performance* In the cases of children considered to be under-achieving, experience has taught us that when pressure to improve i s brought to bear, and consequently, anxiety l e v e l increased, one c h i l d ' s performance w i l l improve and a n o t h e r ^ deteriorate; and conversely, that when pressure to improve i s removed, or anxiety l e v e l reduced, one c h i l d w i l l do better academically and another worse* The question arises as to which approach to employ i n p a r t i c u l a r cases* I f the concept of anxiety as a drive i s accepted, as well as the widely-accepted theory of a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between drive l e v e l and strength of response, variations i n responses such as those discussed above would be expected*. I t follows that with information as to a c h i l d f s consistent or •3 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c anxiety l e v e l , a decision to adopt an approach designed either to increase or to decrease drive, whichever r e s u l t s i n f a c i l i t a t e d performance, could be made with greater ce r t a i n t y . The importance of determining a c h i l d ' s anxiety l e v e l could be stressed f o r yet another reason. As Sarason suggests, i n the case of the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y average but anxious c h i l d , the estimate of po t e n t i a l based on conventional t e s t s may contain more error than i n the case of most other i n t e l l e c t u a l l y average chi l d r e n . Broen (1959) has concluded that anxiety i s a variable which, because i t has si m i l a r e f f e c t s on i n t e l l i g e n c e - t e s t performance and achievement, aids i n the prediction of achievement. Procedures f o r sup-pressing anxiety are seen as decreasing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e l l i g e n c e - t e s t performance and school achievement. / The implication would seem to be that when pre-d i c t i o n of academic achievement i s the sole purpose of i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n g , group t e s t s , or those more nearly approximating the nature of school examinations, would be preferable to individually-administered t e s t s where anxiety can be controlled more adequately. However, to the extent that group-test scores are used i n assessing a c h i l d ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l for evaluative purposes they would seem l e s s preferable f o r the very reason that they are better predictors; that i s , they do not i d e n t i f y the c h i l d whose school achievement seems to be approp-r i a t e to h i s assessed p o t e n t i a l but who i n r e a l i t y i s an underachieving c h i l d whose anxiety has served to a r t i f i c i a l l y depress h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e - t e s t score. Some estimate of l e v e l of anxiety could prove a valuable aid i n i d e n t i f y i n g highly anxious pupils who are unable to function at t h e i r optimum l e v e l or whose potentials are greater than t h e i r i n t e l l i g e n c e - t e s t scores would indicate The chief purpose of the present study i s to deter-mine fo r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes whether, with.IQ and school grade controlled, children ranking low, medium, or high on the Test Anxiety Scale f o r Children w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r performance on school examinations. A second objective i s to determine whether the findings w i l l reveal a l i n e a r or c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, between school performance and Test Anxiety scores. A t h i r d purpose r e l a t e s to the discriminatory power of each of the 30 items on the Test Anxiety Scale f o r Children (hereinafter r e f e r r e d to as the TASC). I t i s investigator's aim to determine whether or not any or a l l of the TASC items, on the basis of a "no" or "yes" answer, discriminates between high and low scholastic achievers, A study of the nature of the discriminating items could increase one's knowledge of possible d i f -ferences i n attitudes of pupils functioning at a minimum and at a maximum l e v e l i n r e l a t i o n to assessed p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y * The originators of the TASC, Sarason et a l (I960), have reported a very consistent tendency for g i r l s to obtain higher anxiety scores than boys* ,This tendency, they report, was also evident i n several studies to which they r e f e r i n t h e i r review of the l i t e r a t u r e * I t is. a l i t t l e beyond the scope of the present study to discuss the implications of these findings beyond stat i n g that i t i s not generally believed that g i r l s are i n r e a l i t y more anxious than boys* Rather, d i f -ferences are a t t r i b u t e d to the fact that i n our culture we expect and support the admissions of anxiety i n g i r l s to a degree and i n ways d i f f e r e n t from boys* G i r l s do ; not learn that they must or should hide anxiety. They f e e l f r e e r , therefore, to admit to feelings of anxiety and as a r e s u l t tend to obtain higher scores on anxiety questionaires* Haggard (1957) found that boys tended to do better than g i r l s i n reading speed and comprehension, whereas 6 g i r l s tended to excel on the s p e l l i n g and language tes t s * McCandless and Castaneda (1956) found that the achievement area most susceptible to the interference of anxiety seemed to be arithmetic computation* A r i t h -metic would seem to require conceptual and abstract reasoning a b i l i t i e s to a larger extent than do other school subjects such as reading and s p e l l i n g , and perhaps could be assumed to be more complex* Other investigators including Sarason et a l (I960) have found that the e f f e c t s of anxiety could be more c l e a r l y demonstrated i n the case of boys than i n the case of g i r l s * With the above observations i n mind the following hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis I When i n t e l l i g e n c e and school grade are held constant, children ranking low, medium, and high on the TASG w i l l reveal differences i n l e v e l of performance on school examinations, and the children ranking medium w i l l do better than those ranking either high or low* Hypothesis II Boys ranking low, medium, and high on the TASG w i l l reveal greater differences i n t h e i r performances than 7 w i l l the g i r l s ranking low, medium, and high on the TASC when i n t e l l i g e n c e and school grade are held constant. Hypothesis III Differences i n the performances of Ss ranking low, medium, and high on the TASC w i l l be greater on the examination involving the greater number of reasoning tasks, i . e . arithmetic, with i n t e l l i g e n c e and school grade held constant. Chapter I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In st a t i n g the problem the term "performance" has been purposely chosen i n preference to the term "learning" i n that the present study concerns learning only as i t i s i n f e r r e d from performance* The study does not deal with s p e c i f i c complex processes which are believed to occur when learning takes place* However, reference to studies r e l a t i n g to learning would seem to be approp-r i a t e i n t h i s chapter since c e r t a i n of t h e i r findings contributed to the development of the problem* Taylor (1951)< was one of the f i r s t to study manifest anxiety as a drive variable* Her theory derived from the Hullian conceptualization of response strength (R) as a m u l t i p l i c a t i v e function of a learning factor (H) and a drive factor (D),» Anxious subjects were assumed to functioh at a higher drive l e v e l and were predicted to learn f a s t e r than l e s s anxious subjects, A person-a l i t y scale of manifest anxiety was developed by Taylor (1953) and i t has since been extensively used i n investigations into the r o l e of anxiety* Studies by Spence and Farber (1953), Spence and Taylor (1951), ' Taylor (1951), and Wenar (1954), showed that on a varie t y of simple tasks low-anxious subjects performed 9 better than did high-anxious subjects* Montague (1953) investigated the e f f e c t of anxiety on performance as a function of the r e l a t i v e number and strength of correct and incorrect response tendencies e l i c i t e d i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n * Subjects were given three l i s t s of nonsense s y l l a b l e s to learn which were made to vary through manipulation of i n t r a - l i s t s i m i l a r i t y and association value* The greater the s i m i l a r i t y between the s y l l a b l e s and the lesser the number of associations they stimulated, the more d i f f i c u l t was the, task regarded* Results showed that anxious subjects performed l e s s well than nonanxioiis subjects on the d i f f i c u l t task, improved t h e i r perfor-mance as the task became easier, and surpassed the nonanxious subjects on the simplest task. I t was concluded from these findings that anxiety does not always f a c i l i t a t e verbal learning, but, to the contrary, i n some cases i n t e r f e r e s with l e a r n i n g . The Montague study as well as those by Farber and Spence (1953)^ Maltzman, Fox, and Morrisett (1953),, and Ramond (.1953), seemed to indicate that, while adequate where simple learning tasks were involved, the Taylor theory was inadequate f o r more complex tasks. As a consequence, Spence, Taylor, and Ketchel (1956) revised 10 t h e i r theory to predict that anxious subjects should per-form more poorly .than nohanxious subjects i n s i t u a t i o n s characterized by competing response tendencies. In ex-planation they state that since performance i s assumed to be a function of the magnitude of the difference . between excitatory p o t e n t i a l s of the correct and i n -correct responses, i t i s obvious that the higher the l e v e l of D the greater w i l l be the advantage of the . incorrect responses and hence the greater l i k e l i h o o d of the occurrence of such erroneous responses. While the revised theory has received support from several investigations including those of Gastaneda Palermo, and McCandless (1956), and Taylor and Recht-schaffen (1959), other studies show r e s u l t s which are not consistent with the revised Taylor-Spence theory. On such example i s the Saltz and Hoehn (1957) study which predicted that on the basis of the Taylor-Spence theory the anxious subjects i n a learning s i t u a t i o n should do more poorly on competing material than on noncompeting. The r e s u l t s were contrary to t h e i r pre-d i c t i o n s . Sarason ( I 9 6 0 ) , commenting on the fact that Bindra, Paterson, and S t r z e l e c k i (1955) did not obtain s i g -n i f i c a n t differences between high-, and low-anxious subjects i n a simple conditioning experimental s i t u a t i o n involving a nondefensive response, suggests that there has perhaps been some confounding of task complexity with task stressfulness© Child (1954) touched on t h i s point when he questioned a t h e o r e t i c a l approach which concentrated on the s i m p l i c i t y or complexity of a task without recognizing the e f f e c t on performance of res-ponses subjects learn to make to the cues provided by t h e i r own anxiety© In other words, the r e l a t i v e comp-l e x i t y of a task i n i t s e l f i s perhaps a f f e c t i n g perfor-mance les s than i s the ego-involved response that i s made when low-, and high-anxious subjects are presented with a d i f f i c u l t and s t r e s s f u l problem. Ruebush (I960),, Sperber (196l), Vogel, Baker, and Lazarus (1958), and Wiener (1959), have a l l presented r e s u l t s which support the b e l i e f that the eff e c t s of anxiety on performance indeed vary not with task comp-l e x i t y alone but with motive and defense as well© Sarason (I960) has pointed out that complex tasks can be both d i f f i c u l t and emotionally arousing and that both aspects must be considered i n inve s t i g a t i n g the effe c t s of anxiety on performance©, Axelrod, Cowen, and H e i l i z e r (1956) found sex of subject and examiner c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to r e l a t e more s i g n i f i c a n t l y to anxiety than did task complexity, and McCandless and Castaneda (1956) have also reported sex 12 . ' ' ' differences. In addition to task complexity, emotional, involvement i n the task, and sex of subject, Sarason et a l (I960) have pointed out that several other variables such as examiner attitude, encouragement or discourage-ment of dependent behaviour, and t e s t - l i k e nature of a task can a l t e r the performance of high and low subjects. Sarason (I960) i n r e f e r r i n g to the u n r e p l i c a b i l i t y and inconsistencies of certain reported findings i n the area of anxiety, r a i s e s s t i l l another question, namely, that of the possible u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the anxiety measuring instruments. He does not suggest, however,, that inconsistent findings are in v a r i a b l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to u n r e l i a b i l i t y i n the anxiety measures, and agrees that they may be due to several " t r a d i t i o n a l " variables such as those mentioned above. Theories of Duffy (1957), Hebb (1955), and Malmo (I9561) suggest yet another possible explanation f o r inconsistent findings,*. Each has stressed the l i k e l i h o o d of an inverted "U" function of anxiety. That i s , they have observed that to a certa i n degree anxiety can be f a c i l i t a t i n g i n i t s e f f e c t on task performance, and beyond that degree, i n h i b i t i n g . Acceptance of t h i s theory makes i t possible to v i s u a l i z e the alt e r n a t i n g positions of the high-, and low-anxious subjects as regards l e v e l of performance, as test conditions serve 13 to increase or reduce anxiety or stress* Focusing now on the measure of anxiety used i n t h i s study, the originators of the scale consider anxiety a drive i n that the organism.presumably s t r i v e s to avoid the f e e l i n g of unpleasantness i t creates* They have, however, presented a more complex theory f o r explaining the r o l e of anxiety i n performance, taking into consideration the subject's response to his own anxiety* As explained by Mandler and Sarason (1952) i t i s assumed that two kinds of anxiety responses are aroused by a t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , those which are ego- defensive and those which are task-relevant* High anxiety subjects are assumed to make more ego-defensive responses (which i n t e r f e r e with task completion) than low anxiety subjects, and i n t h e i r investigations they predicted that anxiety would adversely a f f e c t perfor-mance* A negative l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and performance would seem to be implied* No evidence has been found i n the l i t e r a t u r e to date by the writer that the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c u r v i -l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p obtaining between scores on the TASC and school achievement has been investigated* I f , i n f a c t , the TASC i s measuring a l l l e v e l s of anxiety, greater differences may occur between the performances of the low-, and medium-anxious subjects and between 14 the-medium- and high-anxious subjects, than occur be-tween the performances of the low- and high-anxious subjects. Knowledge regarding the performance of the children whose scores on the TASC f a l l within the cent-r a l portion of the d i s t r i b u t i o n as compared with those at either extreme would be es s e n t i a l i f maximum use i s to be made of anxiety scores i n i n d i v i d u a l cases. In summary i t could be said that i n the e a r l i e s t investigations of anxiety as a drive variable i t was predicted that increased drive would r e s u l t i n a higher l e v e l of performance. I t then began to appear that under cert a i n conditions, f o r example, on complex tasks, low-anxious subjects frequently did better than-high-anxious subjects* The focus of i n t e r e s t gradually <. widened to encompass such variables as task s t r e s s -fulness, emotional involvement, sex of subject, examiner ( • attitude, encouragement or discouragement of dependent behaviour, and t e s t - l i k e nature of a task, a l l of which were found to a f f e c t the performance of low- and high-anxious subjects* The theory was advanced that there were two types of anxiety responses, task-relevant, which were f a c i l i t a t i n g i n t h e i r e f f e c t on performance, and ego-defensive, which were i n h i b i t i n g i n t h e i r e f f e c t . A concept of a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and performance seemed to be maintained* Other investigators, 15 while agreeing that anxiety could be both i n h i b i t i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g i n i t s e f f e c t on performance, reported findings which suggested that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and performance was not l i n e a r , but c u r v i l i n e a r i n the shape of an inverted "U"* I t i s the purpose of the present study to compare the performances of low-, medium-, and high-scoring subjects on the TASC, and to determine whether a l i n e a r pr c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, e x i s t s between TASG scores and performance on school examinations* 16 Chapter I I I METHOD Selection and Grouping of Subjects The t o t a l number of 194 pupils, making up the s i x Grade VI classrooms of two schools selected at random -from among a t o t a l of 35 C i t y of V i c t o r i a elementary public schools, were asked to complete the TASC i n accordance with in s t r u c t i o n s provided by Sarason and co-originators of the t e s t . Questions such as "Do you worry a l o t before you have taken a t e s t ? " and "Do you worry a l o t aft e r you have taken a t e s t ? " comprised the scale* Scores were derived by t o t a l l i n g the number of "yes" answers to the questions. Possible minimum mark was 0 and possible maximum mark was 30. D i s t r i b u t i o n of scores was f a i r l y symmetrical with a range of from 0 to 30 and a median of 13* Two separate sample"groups were selected from among the t o t a l number of 194 pupils completing the TASG. Making up the f i r s t sample were 8 boys and & g i r l s with anxiety scores of 8 or less (low-anxious group), matched on the basis of IQ with 8 boys and 8 g i r l s with anxiety scores of from 11 to 15 (medium-anxious group), and with 8 boys and 8 g i r l s with anxiety scores of over 18 (high-anxious group). IQs ranged from 94 to 135. Findings f o r t h i s group were not found to be Y 17 s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t * Individual raw marks obtained by the subjects on each of the examinations d i f f e r e d at most 22 points and more frequently not more than from 12 to 14 points. In view of the wide range i n IQs such a small range i n raw marks was thought i n s u f f i c i e n t to reveal variations i n l e v e l of performance r e s u l t i n g from differences i n anxiety l e v e l over and above variations r e s u l t i n g fronf differences i n i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l . This f i r s t sample was therefore abandoned and a second selected which offered a wider range i n examination marks i n r e l a t i o n to range i n i n t e l l e c t u a l potential.. The alternate sample included the t o t a l number o f 59 pupils having IQs within 5 percentiles of (.less than 1 standard deviation from), a population mean of 111. Within t h i s group were 26 boys and 33 g i r l s . Eleven boys and 9 g i r l s (roughly one-third the t o t a l number) had anxiety scores of le s s than 12 and were labeled low-anxious; 8 boys and 12 g i r l s had scores of from 13 to ~ 17 and were labeled medium-anxious; and 7 boys and 12 g i r l s had scores of over IB and were labeled high-anxious .: These 59 subjects were used exclu s i v e l y throughout the remaining portions of the present study. In i n v e s t i g a t i n g the discriminatory power of each of the items on the TASC, subjects were grouped and r e -grouped 30 times according to whether they answered; 18 each question "no11 or "yes". In other words, subjects were grouped according to what f e e l i n g , attitude, or behaviour they admitted with respect to the p a r t i c u l a r p o s s i b i l i t y or s i t u a t i o n which was the focus of each question, i . e . "Are you a f r a i d of school t e s t s ? " . Control of Variables Measures were taken to c o n t r o l four variables believed to a f f e c t performance on school examinations* These were i n t e l l i g e n c e , school grade, extent and method of i n s t r u c t i o n , and the examiner vari a b l e . 1. The method employed to control the i n t e l l i g e n c e variable was to match subjects or groups on the basis of t h e i r scores on a group t e s t of - general i n t e l l i g e n c e * A l l Grade VI pupils under the V i c t o r i a Public School Board had been asked a few weeks pr i o r to t h i s inves-t i g a t i o n to complete the Otis Self-administering Tests of Mental A b i l i t y , and IQs so derived were made available to the Investigator by the Department of Tests and Measurement* 2. School grade was controlled by l i m i t i n g the s e l e c t i o n of subjects to those of the s i x t h grade at the time of t h i s study* 3. As regards the i n s t r u c t i o n variable, assurance , was received from the school p r i n c i p a l s concerned that course content, hours of i n s t r u c t i o n , and method of 1 9 teaching were, to a l l intends and purposes, s i m i l a r i n each of the s i x classrooms from which the subjects were selected. 4 » The f a c t that each classroom received i n s t r u c t i o n from a d i f f e r e n t teacher posed a problem i n that his or her attitude could serve to increase or reduce the over-a l l anxiety l e v e l of the pupils, p a r t i c u l a r l y around test s i t u a t i o n s at which times teachers are i n e f f e c t examiners. An attempt wa's therefore made to control the examiner variable, and an analysis of variance was calculated from the TASC scores. Results are shown i n Table 1 . The analysis revealed no s t a t i s t i c a l differences between the classes as regards o v e r - a l l l e v e l of anxiety. I t was assumed, therefore, that differences were a t t r i -butable to chance rather than to systematic differences i n teaching, and to t h i s extent the fourth variable was considered c o n t r o l l e d . Also, purely objective t e s t s were used as a basis for comparing performances of experimental groups i n order to avoid possible examiner bias i n grading the examination papers. The age variable was l e f t uncontrolled i n order to avoid possible exclusion from the sample groups of the type of p u p i l who i s the p r i n c i p a l focus of i n t e r e s t i n tthis study, namely, those who are achieving academically at a pace that would not be considered average i n rela-. 20 Table 1 F D i s t r i b u t i o n of TASC Scores of S i x Grade 6 Classrooms V i c t o r i a Public Schools Source of Sum of df Mean F Variance Squares Squares Between 353.41 5 " 70o68 1.89 Within 7183.89 187 37*22 Total 7537.30 21- > t i o n to t h e i r assessed i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l . Measurements 1, A standardized, purely objective set of examina-tions which included vocabulary, reading, mathematical reasoning and computational arithmetic t e s t s , were written by Grade VI pupils within a few weeks of the administration of the TASC. Raw marks obtained by the students were made available to the investigator by the Department of Tests and Measurement, V i c t o r i a Public School Board, These marks served as the basis of comparison of performances of low-, medium-, and high-anxious subjects. Examinations of varying content were selected with a view to presenting to the subjects t e s t s which would provide some v a r i a t i o n i n d i f f i c u l t y , a variable which some observers have found to be operative i n studies r e l a t i n g to the performance of high-, and low-anxious subjects. Each t e s t item on each of the four examinations was given a value of 1 mark for a correct response, and a zero value for an incorrect response. Maximum possible scores ranged from 36 to 48, As an equalizing measure, scores, where necessary, were pro-rated to permit a possible maximum of 4&1 points. 2. In i n v e s t i g a t i n g the discriminatory power of the TASC items, l e v e l of achievement was based on a 22 s u b j e c t s raw mark on the computational arithmetic' examination., as findings pertaining to the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n revealed that i t was the most d i s c r i m i -nating of the four examinations. Also, a study of the raw marks of the t o t a l population of V i c t o r i a Grade VI public school children showed i t to have the most sym-metrical d i s t r i b u t i o n and the widest range .j Analysis Procedure 1. In determining the differences, i f any, i n l e v e l of performance between the low-, medium-, and high-anxious subjects, raw marks obtained by each subject were f i r s t t o t a l l e d . That i s , raw marks obtained on each of the four examinations were t o t a l -l e d for each subject. Comparisons were made between the performances of the groups of boys together with the g i r l s , and secondly, of the groups of the boys and then of the g i r l s separately. S i m i l a r l y , comparisons were made of the low-, medium-, and high-anxious subjects on the basis of t h e i r performance on each i n d i v i d u a l examination. The s t a t i s t i c a l measure employed i n each case was the " t n test f o r means. Owing to the explora-tory nature of t h i s study, two-tailed t e s t s of s i g n i -ficance were used throughout the analyses.. 2. Two-tailed " t n tests f o r means were also emp-loyed i n determining the power of each TASC item to 23 discriminate between the high-achievers and low-achievers. -Mean performance of a l l subjects answering a question "no n was f i r s t compared with the mean per-formance of those subjects answering the same question "yes". Comparisons were then made between the mean performances of the boys and of the g i r l s separately. Summary A f i r s t sample of 48 subjects selected from within a population of Grade VI pupils was discarded because of a lack of range In experimental test marks. A second sample was selected which comprised 59 pupils having IQs within 5 percentiles of the mean IQ of 111, and on the basis of t h e i r TASC scores 20 subjects were placed i n the low-anxious group, 20 subjects i n the medium-anxious group, and 19 subjects i n the high-anxious group. Each of the three groups were then separated into groups of boys only and groups of g i r l s only. Performances of the boys and g i r l s as combined groups, and as separate groups, were then compared on the basis of t o t a l marks obtained on a l l four examina-tions and on each examination separately. Similar comparisons were made of performances of subjects grouped as to whether a "no M or "yes" answer was given to each item on the TASC, using the raw marks obtained 24 on the computational arithmetic examination, to deter mine the power of each item to discriminate between the high-achievers and low-aehievers:« -Chapter IV RESULTS In order to present the r e s u l t s as c l e a r l y and . concisely as possible, the main groups of low-, medium-, and high-anxious boys together with the g i r l s w i l l hereafter be r e f e r r e d to as LA, MA, and HA. Low-, medium-, and high-anxious groups of boys only, and of g i r l s only, w i l l be referred to as LA boys, MA boys, and HA boys (or g i r l s ) . The hypotheses were p a r t i a l l y supported by the findings for the boys and g i r l s together, and for the boys only, but were not supported by-the findings f o r the g i r l s only. Achievement means for a l l groups on each examination are presented i n Table 2. Mean d i f -ferences between the low-, medium-, and high-anxious groups are presented i n Tables 3, 4, and 5. The findings as they r e l a t e to each hypothesis are outlined below. , Hypothesis I On the basis of i n d i v i d u a l t o t a l marks on a l l four examinations combined, mean differences between the LAj MA, and HA groups were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , Table 2 Achievement Means f o r LA, MA, and HA Groups of Boys and G i r l s ; LA, MA, and HA Boys; and LA, MA, and HA G i r l s Computat- Reasoning Reading Vbcab- Total i o n a l A r i t h - A r i t h - u l ary Marks metic metic Boys and G i r l s LA, 3 4 . 0 5 MA 3 0 . 4 0 HA. 34.26 Boys LA 3 5 . 4 5 MA 28.88 HA. 3 5 . 5 5 G i r l s LA 3 2 . 3 3 MA. 3 1 . 4 1 HA 3 3 . 4 1 39.00 37.95 37.26 39.36 39.12 38.42 38.55 37.16 36.58 3 9 . 0 0 3 9 . 0 2 40.00 4 0 . 6 3 3 7 . 6 2 3 6 . 8 4 3 7 . 0 0 4 0 . 2 5 3 9 . 0 0 4 2 . 3 0 40.00 4 0 . 9 4 4 3 . 0 0 38^.50 4 1 . 4 2 4 1 . 4 4 4 1 . 0 0 4 0 . 6 6 154.35 147.55 150.68 158.45 144.12 1 5 2 . 3 8 149.33 149.83 149.75 . Table 3 Low-, Mediums, and High-anxious Grade 6 Pupils* Mean Achievement Differences Examination Possible N Mean Differences Total Marks HA-LA MA-LA. MA-HA Combined Computational Arithmetic ' Arithmetical Reasoning - • Reading Vocabulary 196 59 3.6? 6.80 3 .,13 Computational Arithmetic k$ 59 .21 3*65* 3.36** Arithmetical Reasoning 48 59 1.74 1«05 069 Reading 48 59 .79 »02 .81 Vocabulary 48 59 1*36 2 .30* .94 * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l Table 4 Low-, Medium-, and High-anxious Grade 6 Boys* Mean Achievement Differences Examination Possible N Mean Differences Total Marks HA-LA MA-LA. MA-HA. Combined Computational Arithmetic Arithmetical Reasoning Reading Vocabulary 196 26 6.14 14.33 8.16 Computational Arithmetic 48 26 .10 6.57* 6.67 Arithmetical Reasoning 48 26 .94 .24 .70 Reading 48 26 3.78 3.01 .77 Vocabulary 48 26 1.58 4.50** 2.92 * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l Table 5 Low-, Medium-^ and High-anxious Grade 6 G i r l s 1 Mean Achievement Differences Examination Possible K Mean Differences Total Marks HA--L& MA-LA. MA-HA. Combined Computational Arithmetic Arithmetical Reasoning Reading Vocabulary 196 33 .42 .50 .08 Computational Arithmetic 48 33 1.08 .92 2.00 Arithmetical Reasoning 48 33 1.97 1.39 .58 Reading 48 33 2.00 3.25 1.25 Vocabulary 48 33 .73 .44 •34 30-nor were the differences between the LA, MA, and HA. g i r l s and LA, MA, and HA boys. However, the MA group and the MA boys obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower marks than the LA group and the LA boys respectively on the compu-t a t i o n a l arithmetic and vocabulary examinations. Also, the MA group and the MA boys obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower marks than did the HA group and HA boys respec-t i v e l y on computational arithmetic. Performances of the LA, MA, and HA g i r l s f a i l e d to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on any of the four i n d i v i d u a l examinations. The pre-d i c t i o n that children ranking low, medium, and high on the TASC would reveal differences i n l e v e l of per-formance on school examinations could be said to be p a r t i a l l y supported, but the prediction that subjects ranking medium would do better than those ranking either high or low was not supported.. Hypothesis II LA, MA, and HA g i r l s showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t differences i n t h e i r mean scores on any of the . examinations i n d i v i d u a l l y , or on the four examinations combined. However, LA and HA boys did better than the MA boys on computational arithmetic, and LA boys did better than the MA boys on vocabulary. In these three • i instances the boys showed greater differences between 31 t h e i r performances than did the g i r l s , and to t h i s extent i t could be said that Hypothesis II has been supported by the f i n d i n g s . Hypothesis I I I This hypothesis was not supported by the findings for the g i r l s but was p a r t i a l l y supported by the findings f o r the boys i n that the low-, medium-, and high-anxious groups showed greater differences i n t h e i r performances on the examination believed to present the greatest number of reasoning tasks ( i . e . computational arithmetic) than on any of the other examinations. As has been previously stated, s i g n i f i c a n t mean differences between the groups of boys and g i r l s together could perhaps be attributed to the performance of the boys. -Discriminatory Power of the TASG Items The mean computational arithmetic marks obtained by subjects answering "no" and by those answering "yes" to each item on the TASC are presented i n the Appendix.; The mean marks obtained by the boys as separate from the g i r l s , and by the g i r l s as separate from the boys, are also: presented i n the Appendix* Item 2 2 (After you have taken a test do you worry about how well you did on the test?) was the only item to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between 32 the high-, and low-achievers at the .05 l e v e l of s i g -n i f i c a n c e . When differences for the boys and g i r l s were calculated separately, findings were s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n to the boys but not i n r e l a t i o n to the gi r l s . . Subjects answering Item 22 i n the affirmative tended to obtain higher mean marks than did those answering i n the negative. Summary With respect to Hypothesis I, Hypothesis I I , and Hypothesis I I I , no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the performances of the LA, MA, and HA g i r l s . . The s i g n i f i c a n t differences which were found between the performances of the boys and g i r l s together are perhaps att r i b u t a b l e to the performances of the boys. LA, and HA boys did better than the MA boys on computational arithmetic, and LA. boys did better than MA boys on vocabulary as w e l l . Contrary to expec-tations, where s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found, the MA. groups obtained the lower mean marks. Computational arithmetic means showed a nU" type r e l a t i o n s h i p to anxiety rather than an inverted ttUtf type r e l a t i o n s h i p . Item 22 was the only item' on the TASG to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the low-, and high-achievers i n arithmetic. 33 Subjects responding "yes" to Item 22 did better than those responding "no". Findings impose l i m i t a t i o n s to the use of i n d i v i d u a l t e s t anxiety scores f o r i n t e r -pretive purposes without further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Chapter V/ . ' DISCUSSION Significance of Positive Findings The s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the performances of the low-, medium-, and high-anxious boys on the computational arithmetic and vocabulary examinations point to a "U" shaped c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n -ship between anxiety and school achievement, i n some areas at l e a s t . Lack of.stringent controls, however, could have distorted the r e s u l t s , and t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s discussed i n the. ensuing pages. Gn the other hand, i t i s possible that d i s t o r t i o n may not have occurred, and another explanation should perhaps be offered as to why the medium-anxious boys tended to do l e s s well than the low-, and high-anxious boys. I t may be that low-anxious subjects experience l i t t l e anxiety that i s i n h i b i t i n g and may make few responses that are not task relevant, so that i n a test s i t u a t i o n they are able to show good r e s u l t s . Medium-anxious subjects are l i k e l y to make a greater number of task relevant responses but at the same time are ^ l i k e l y to make many ego-defensive responses which i n t e r -f e r with task completion, so that the net r e s u l t i s a - ' 35 poorer performance than that given by the low-anxious subjects. The high-anxious subjects could be expected to make a s t i l l greater number of ego-defensive respon- v ses but i t i s possible that t h e i r high anxiety motivates them to make a s u f f i c i e n t l y greater number of task relevant responses which more than compensate, so that t h e i r net r e s u l t i s a higher l e v e l of performance than \S that given by the medium-anxious subjects. Although low-, and high-anxious subjects may have done equally well on c e r t a i n t e s t s , i t may be that the amount of e f f o r t expended was considerably greater f o r the high-anxious subjects than f o r t h e lqwr.anxi.ous sjubjects. A. repeat of the present study using more stringent controls would be indicated, however, before further consideration could be given to the p o s s i b i l i t y that medium-anxious children as a rule perform l e s s well than do the low-, and high-anxious c h i l d r e n . . In view of several methodological weaknesses which could have served to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining more p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s i n the present study, the lack of findings to support the hypotheses should not be i n t e r -preted as cause to c r i t i c a l l y view the TASC as an instrument by which to measure anxiety l e v e l i n c h i l d r e n . At the .same time, there are several problems to overcome 36 i n the construction and use of an anxiety questionaire before a measurement of anxiety s u f f i c i e n t l y v a l i d f o r evaluative or predictive purposes can be obtained* Discussion of c e r t a i n of these problems w i l l follow the immediate discussion of problems r e l a t i n g to procedure. Suggested Revisions i n Procedure Of v i t a l concern i n studying differences i n the performances of i n d i v i d u a l s i s the control of the int,el-ligence v a r i a b l e . In the present study circumstances demanded the use of a group te s t of i n t e l l i g e n c e as a basis f o r matching subjects, whereas the use of an i n d i -v i d u a l l y administered test appears to have been warranted. The r e l a t i v e l y high correlations between the TASG scores of the 194 pupils and t h e i r IQs as measured by the Otis Self-administered Test of Mental A b i l i t y ( - . 4 7 ) , and between t h e i r IQs and examination marks C/.69),- strongly suggests that the anxiety variable was operative when the IQs were derived. As a r e s u l t much of any difference between the performances of i n d i v i d u a l s rated low-, medium-, or high-anxious would have been incorporated into t h e i r scores on the i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t and would not appear i n an analysis of data r e l a t i n g to performance. E s s e n t i a l to investigations such as the present one would seem to be the stringent control of anxiety during 37 the administration of i n t e l l i g e n c e tests when the matching of subjects i s to be based on the r e s u l t s , A. suggested r e v i s i o n i n the methodology of the present study i s that IQs be derived from i n d i v i d u a l l y adminis-tered tests i n a s i t u a t i o n which permits maximum rapport between examiner and subject and minimizes the t e s t - l i k e a t t r i b u t e s of the t e s t s i t u a t i o n . Of pertinent inte r e s t , perhaps, would be an investi g a t i o n into the differences between low-, medium-, and high-anxious children i n performances on an i n d i v i d u a l l y administered t e s t of i n t e l l i g e n c e and on a group t e s t of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In arranging subjects i n three groups according to l e v e l of anxiety another problem of major proportion arises i n that l e v e l of anxiety i n subjects could vary between the time of t h e i r performance on the TASC and t h e i r performance on the experimental t e s t s ( i n t h i s case, school examinations), In other words, there i s no guarantee that the anxiety l e v e l of each subject w i l l remain as evaluated by his performance on the TASC, to the time of, and throughout his performance i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n . For example, subjects could view a p a r t i c u l a r examination with varying degrees of r e l i e f or alarm depending on how well they believed themselves prepared to complete the examination, and i t 33 i s conceivable that occasionally the positions of the low-, and high-anxious groups would be reversed. Even i n a study i n which subjects were tested on a l i s t of nonsense s y l l a b l e s which had been to the same extent learned by the experimental subjects, there would s t i l l be present the problem of the subjects' subjective evaluations of t h e i r preparedness f o r the test*. In order to preserve the homogeneity of groups as regards l e v e l of anxiety i t would perhaps prove necessary to measure anxiety l e v e l by physiological means at the commencement of, and at various i n t e r v a l s throughout, an examination. Subjects would then be grouped and re-grouped as frequently as necessary to preserve the homogeneity of the groups. Performances would of neces-s i t y be studied piecemeal a The problem of obtaining a measurement of i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l independent of the e f f e c t s of anxiety, and a measure of anxiety inde-pendent of a task or t e s t , would appear to be a d i f f i c u l t one to overcome. Even i n such cases as i t may be assumed that l e v e l of anxiety has been accurately measured by means of a questionaire such as the TASC and has not appreciably altered up to and during the time of the test perfor-mance, there s t i l l remains the d i f f i c u l t problem of 39 determining which range of scores represent a low l e v e l of anxiety, which a medium l e v e l , and which a high l e v e l . In the present study, owing to the r e l a t i v e l y small population from which the. sample was derived, the t o t a l number of 59 pupils with IQs ranging from 106 to 116 were used as experimental subjects with one t h i r d comprising each of the three groups* Such a d i v i s i o n was purely a r b i t r a r y and perhaps inappropriate i n that approximately 83 percent of the pupils obtained anxiety scores within one standard deviation of the mean, and r e l a t i v e l y few obtained either very low or very high-scores. This was perhaps to be expected i n view of the fa c t that i n the average classroom r e l a t i v e l y few pupils present a major underachievement problem as a r e s u l t of anxiety or other types of interference. Working with a population of several hundred pupils and using only the extreme'ends of a d i s t r i b u t i o n , plus a l i k e number from the mid portion, could perhaps sub-s t a n t i a l l y increase the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s i n a study of t h i s nature. In bringing to a close the discussion r e l a t i n g to procedural points, one other question i s raised»; I t concerns the discriminatory power of the experimental t e s t material.. In the present study three of the four 40 examinations used were decidedly p o s i t i v e l y skewed, and while they may have adequately served the purpose f o r which,they were intended, test r e s u l t s appeared to reveal only gross differences i n i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y and would therefore not be expected to reveal differences a t t r i b u -table to varying l e v e l s of anxiety as w e l l . Computational arithmetic marks were more symmetrically d i s t r i b u t e d and the examination could be regarded as more discriminating. However, each t e s t question had a value of one mark f o r a correct response, and a zero for an incorrect response, and i t may be that a f i n e r system of grading would be required to r e v e a l differences i n performance due to anxiety. I f so, t h i s would reduce further the l i k e l i -hood of obtaining p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s i n the present study. -It could be argued, perhaps, that i f school examinations f a i l to pick up the e f f e c t s of anxiety further i n v e s t i -gation into the r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and school achievement i s unwarranted. This would seem to merely beg the question, but i t may develop that differences should be studied i n terms of extent of e f f o r t i n r e l a -t i o n to achievement rather than i n terms of achievement alone. V a l i d i t y of Anxiety Measure While there remains an apparent lack of c l e a r l y 41 defined c r i t e r i a to which to predict i n the case of anxious and non-anxious persons, v a l i d i t y of an anxiety questionaire w i l l prove d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h * Sarason and his colleagues claim construct v a l i d i t y f o r t h e i r scale on the grounds that i t enabled them to predict behaviour correctly, i n a number of d i f f e r e n t but r e l e -vant s i t u a t i o n s . They were able, f o r example, to predict a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between IQ and anxiety, and to show that the r e l a t i o n s h i p was primarily due to the e f f e c t s of anxiety on i n t e l l i g e n c e rather than v i s a versa. However, when subjects were matched on the basis of sex, IQ. and age, differences i n the perfor-mances of the high-, and low-anxious subjects i n a learning s i t u a t i o n were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . ' Two explanations were offered by Sarason and h i s group for lack of positive findings, one r e l a t i n g to order of presentation of learning material, and one r e l a t i n g to examiner i n s t r u c t i o n s . In addition to these d i f f i c u l t i e s , plus others r e l a t i n g to methodology which have been discussed i n the present chapter as they apply to the Sarason study, a possible explanation f o r lack of p o s i t i v e findings could perhaps be found i n the area of the TASG i t s e l f - more pre c i s e l y , i n i t s v a l i d i t y or lack of v a l i d i t y . 42 I t has been suggested that the most parsimonious statement that can be made as regards anxiety scales i s that they measure the extent to which a subject i s able to admit his feelings of anxiety*. As stated e a r l i e r , c u l t u r a l attitudes seem to allow greater freedom to g i r l s to express t h e i r f e e l i n g s of anxiety, and as a group g i r l s have consistently been found to obtain higher scores than boys on anxiety questionaires* This difference has been att r i b u t e d to the difference i n c u l t u r a l attitude toward the expression of anxiety i n boys and i n g i r l s , and i t has not been shown that anxiety l e v e l i s a c t u a l l y higher i n g i r l s than i n boys. The problem has thus f a r been dealt with by t r e a t i n g them as separate groups i n experimental s i t u a t i o n s . The point serves to i l l u s t r a t e , however, that the questionaire method of assessing anxiety l e v e l i s subject to certain inaccuracies due to the apparent i n a b i l i t y of a percentage of subjects to admit anxiety* A reverse tendency has been noted i n other subjects who seem to exaggerate t h e i r symptoms* Discriminatory Power of TASC; Items I f , i n f a c t , high anxiety does i n t e r f e r e with per-formance, an analysis of the findings might have been 43 expected to reveal a tendency for the high-achievers to answer an item "no", and f o r the low-achievers to answer "yes". Means and mean differences between the "no" and "yes" groups i n t h e i r performances on compu-t a t i o n a l arithmetic do not reveal such a trend. Approximately half of the groups of boys and g i r l s who answered various questions "no" obtained lower grades than did those who answered "yes"* Question 22 was the only item to d i f f e r e n t i a t e i n a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -cant way between the "no" and "yes" groups, the l a t t e r obtaining the better grades. In view of the fact that 51 subjects out of the t o t a l number of 59 responded p o s i t i v e l y to the item i t s value i n the questionaire would appear to be l i m i t e d , and t h i s may also be said of approximately eight other items to which two-thirds or more of the subjects responded i n the affirmative., Without benefit of substantiating evidence through s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and purely from speculation, i t might be said that several of the items on the TASG are of a nature to prompt a "yes" answer from a pupi l who could perhaps be better described as well motivated than anxious. Worded d i f f e r e n t l y , some items appear to be picking up the type of anxiety which would be l i k e l y to promote task relevant responses while others 44 would appear to be picking up the type of anxiety which would be l i k e l y to promote task i r r e l e v a n t responses© Combined i n a questionaire one could be seen as cancel-l i n g out the other. An extension of the present study would involve i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the p o s s i b i l i t y that medium-anxious pupils tend to respond to the so-called "motivational" items i n the negative. Could t h i s be shown i t would support the conjecture that medium-anxious pupils, do l e s s well than high-anxious pupils because they lack the degree of motivation which enables a high-anxious pup i l to increase his e f f o r t s s u f f i c i e n t l y to compensate f o r his task-irrelevant responses by making a greater number of task-relevant responses. .Conclusions I t may be that anxiety has several components, some of which f a c i l i t a t e optimum use of p o t e n t i a l while others i n h i b i t optimum use of p o t e n t i a l . I f the various components of anxiety were a l l tapped by a questionaire such as the TASC i t would seem necessary to give some questions a negative value and some a positive value i n order f o r the f i n a l score to r e f l e c t the degree to which a subject's performance would l i k e l y be i n keeping with his i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l . The construction of such a scale would necessarily e n t a i l a vast amount of research 45 into the types of responses each component of anxiety provokes, as well as the i n t e r a c t i o n between the components. I t would also e n t a i l i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these various components of anxiety and such variables as were mentioned i n reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , namely, examiner variables, task comp-l e x i t y , encouragement or discouragement of dependency, and t e s t - l i k e nature of a task, C a t t e l l (1957) i n developing the IPAT as an anxiety measure seems to have been mindful of the above problems. This scale reportedly provides some measure of covert as well as overt anxiety, and the items have been designed to explore an in d i v i d u a l ' s response i n a number of situations., The IPAT items inquire into the extent of an indi v i d u a l ' s concern regarding the attitudes of others toward him, his ease of v e r b a l i z i n g , his sense of being needed, his behaviour i n emergency situations,, his response to c r i t i c i s m , his concern with health,, forgetfulness, s o c i a l competence, and problem-solving behaviour. The scale would seem to be measuring "general" anxiety, however, and whether i t would be the most suitable instrument for school purposes may be problematical i n view of the findings of Sarason et a l (I960) that measures of general anxiety do not neces-46 s a r i l y r e f l e c t accurately the levels' of anxiety aroused i n test s i t u a t i o n s . The IPAT does', neverthe-l e s s , provide a good example of a scale which gives recognition to the complexity of the i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of anxiety. Lack of more precise knowledge which future research may provide has perhaps contributed l a r g e l y . to any f a i l u r e thus f a r to construct an anxiety scale useful f o r evaluation or prediction i n i n d i v i d u a l cases. However, scales such as the TASC are serving ~ a u s e f u l purpose i n the f i e l d of research and have contributed a great deal toward a better appreciation and understanding of the complex nature and function of anxiety. Summary This study was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n -ship between anxiety and t e s t performance. Subjects were Grade VI boys and g i r l s whose IQs ranged from 106 to 116, Comparisons were made of the low-, medium-and high-anxious groups on the basis of t h e i r perfor-mances on four school examinations. The medium-anxious boys did l e s s well on computational arithmetic than either the low-, or high-anxious boys, and less well on 47 vocabulary than the low-anxious boys. The d i r e c t i o n of differences suggested a "U" type c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n -ship between anxiety and t e s t performance. Findings must be regarded as inconclusive and the study purely exploratory because of a f a i l u r e to use, i f such e x i s t , a measure of i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l which i s independent of the effects of anxiety, and a measure of anxiety which i s independent of a task or t e s t . REFERENCES Axelrod, H. D., Cowen, E. L., & H e i l i z e r , F. The cor-r e l a t e s of manifest anxiety i n stylus maze learning. J . exp. Psychol.. 1956, 51, 131-138. Bindra, D., Patterson, A. L., & S t r z e l e c k i , Joanna. On the r e l a t i o n between anxiety and conditioning. Canad. J . Psychol.. 1955, 9, 1-6. Broen, W. E. J r . Anxiety, i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement. Psychol. Rep.. 1959, 5, 701-704. Castaneda, A., Palermo, D. S., & McCandless, B. R. Complex learning and performance as a function of anxiety i n children and task d i f f i c u l t y . C hild  Developm.. 1956, 27, 327-332. C a t t e l l , R. B. Handbook f o r the IPAT anxiety scale. Champaign, 111., I n s t i t u t e for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1957. Child, I. L. Personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol.. 1954, 5, 147-170. Duffy, E l i z a b e t h . The psychological significance of the concept of "arousal" or " a c t i v a t i o n " . Psychol. Rev.. 1957, 64, 265-275. Farber, I. E..,.& Spence, K. ¥. Complex learning and conditioning as a function of anxiety. J . exp. Psychol.. 1953, 45, 120-125. Haggard, E. A. S o c i a l i z a t i o n , personality and achieve-49 ment i n g i f t e d children,, Sch. Rev., Winter Issue, 318-414. Hebb, D. 0, Drives and the C. N. S. Psychol* Rev,. 1955, 54, 490-492, McGandless, B. R., & Gastaneda, A, Anxiety i n children, school achievement, and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Child  Developm,. 1956, 27, 379-382, Malmo, R, B, Measurement of drive; an unsolved problem. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Moti-vation, U, of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1958. Pp. 229-265. Maltzman, I,, Fox, J . , & Morrisett, L, Some e f f e c t s of manifest anxiety on mental set. J . exp. Psychol,. 1953, 46, 50-54. Mandler, G,, & Sarason, S. B. J , abnorm, soc. Psychol.. 1952, 47, 266-273. Montague, E. K. The r o l e of anxiety i n s e r i a l l earning. J . exp. Psychol.. 1953, 45, 91-96. Ramond, C. K. Anxiety and task as determiners of verbal performance. J . exp. Psychol., 1953, 46, 120-125. Ruebush, B. K. Int e r f e r i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t s of tes t anxiety, J . abnorm. soc. Psychol., I960, 60, 205-212, S a l t z , E., & Hoehn, A. J . A test of the Taylor-Spence theory of anxiety, J . abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 114-117. 5 0 Sarason, I. G. Empirical findings and t h e o r e t i c a l problems i n the use of anxiety scales, Psychol, B u l l . . I960, 57, 403-415. Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., L i g h t h a l l , F. F., Waite, R. R., & Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety i n elementary  school children. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., I960, Spence, K. W„, & Farber, I. E. Conditioning and extinction as a function of anxiety, J . exp. Psychol.. 1953, 45, 116-119. Spence, K. W., & Taylor, Janet A. Anxiety and strength of the UCS as determiners of the amount of eye l i d conditioning. J . exp. Psychol.. 1951, 4 2 , 183-188. Spence, K. W,, Taylor, Janet A., & Ketchel, Rhoda. Anxiety (drive) l e v e l and degree of competition i n paired associates learning, J . exp. Psychol.,-1956, 52, 306-310. Sperber, Z. Test anxiety and performance under s t r e s s . J . consult. Psychol.. 1961, 2 5 , 2 2 6 - 2 3 3 . Taylor, Janet A. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of anxiety to the conditioned e y e l i d response. J . exp. Psychol., 1951, 41, 8 1 - 9 2 . Taylor, Janet A. A, personality scale of manifest anxiety. J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.,. 1953, 4 8 , , 285-290. 51 Taylor, Janet A., & Rechtschaffen, A. Manifest anxiety and reversed alphabet p r i n t i n g . J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.y 1959, 53, 221- 2 2 4 . Taylor, Janet A., & Spence, K. .¥. The re l a t i o n s h i p of anxiety l e v e l to performance i n s e r i a l l e arning. J . exp. Psychol., 1952, 44, 61-64. Vogel, W., Baker, R. W., & Lazarus, R. S. The r o l e of motivation i n psychological s t r e s s . J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1958, 56, 105-112. . Wenar, C. Reaction time as a function of manifest anxiety and stimulus i n t e n s i t y . J . abnorm. soc., Psychol...- 1954, 49, 335-340. Wiener, G. The i n t e r a c t i o n among anxiety, stress i n s t r u c t i o n s , and d i f f i c u l t y . J . consult. Psychol. 1959, 2 3 , 324-328., Appendix Computational Arithmetic Mean Achievement and Mean Differences Between Pupils who Answered "no" and Pupils who Answered "Yes" on each TASC Item TASC Item Mean Achievement "No" Ss N "Yes" Ss K Mean Difference One 24.00 (26), 23.57 (33) .43 Two 25.64 (17), 24.28 (42) 1.36 Three 24.68 (25) 24.38 (34) .38 Four 25.00 (.30) 24.34 (29) .66 Five 24.67 (51) 25.00 ( 8 ) .33 Six 24.00 (18) 24.53 (41) .53 Seven 24.53 (30) 24.82 129) .29 Eight 25.05 (19) 24.50 (40) .55 Nine 24.73 (42) 24.52 (17) .21 Ten 24,62 (45) 24.85 (14) .23 Eleven 25,20 (35) , 22,90 (23), 2.30 Twelve 25.29 (.41) 22.16 (13) 3.13 Thirteen 24,22 (22) 24.86 (37); .64 Fourteen 24.28 (35) 25.00 (24) .72 F i f t e e n 24.53 (50) 25.22 ( 9) .64 Sixteen . 25.50 (18) 24.31 (411 1.19 Seventeen 24.9,2 (40) 24.15 (19) .77 Eighteen 24.87 (40) 24.15 (19) .72 Nineteen 25.10 (34) 24.35 (25) .75 11 TASC Item Mean Achievement Mean "No" Ss N "Yes" Ss N Difference Twenty 24.47 [17) 24.76 (42); .29 Twenty-one 24.50 < [32) 24.14 (27) .36 Twenty-two 21.33 [ 9) 25.28 "(50) 3 . 9 5 * Twenty-three 23,69 1 [33) 25.92 (26) 2,23 Twenty-four 24.46 (45) . 25.35 (14) :89 Twenty-five 25.00 1 [28) 24.38 (31) .62 Twenty-six 25.83 I 6), 24.54 (53) •1.29 Twenty-seven 23.77 19) 24.04 (50) .27 Twenty-eight 24.00 (24) 25.14 (35) 1.14 Twenty-nine 24.00 (30) 25.37 (29) 1.37 T h i r t y 24.10 [48) 27.09 (11) 2.99 * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Computational Arithmetic Mean Achievement and Mean Differences between G i r l s who Answered "No" and G i r l s who Answered "Yes" on each TASC Item TASC Item Mean Achievement "No" Ss N "Yes" Ss N Mean Differences One 24.53 (13) 24.15 (20) .38 Two 25.00 ( 9) 24.04 (24) .96 Three 24.20 (15) 23.72 (18) .48 Four 24.44 (16) 24.18 (17), .26 Five 24.10 (29) 25.75 ( 4) 1.65 Six 22.12 ( 8) 24.20 (25) 2.08 Seven 23.60 (20) 25.38 (.13) 1.78 Eight 23.44 ( 9) 24.63 (24) 1.19 Nine 24*42 (24) 24.00 ( 9) .42 Ten 24.37 (27) 24.00 (.6) .37 Eleven 24.95 (20) 23*07 (.13) 1*88 Twelve 24.38 (23) 22.10 (10) 2.28 Thirteen 24.07 (14) 24.47 (19) .30 Fourteen 23.35 (17) 25.31 (16) 1.96 F i f t e e n 24.32 (28) 24.20 ( 5) .12 Sixteen 24.40 (10). 24.26 (23) .14 Seventeen 25.37 (19) 22.86 (14) 2.51 Eighteen 23.92 (25), 25.50 ( $) 1.58 ' Nineteen 25.47 (15) 23.33 (18) 2*14 ••i Twenty . 23*78 C 9) 24.50 (24): .72 i v TASC Item Mean Achievement Mean "No" Ss N "Yes" Ss N Differences Twenty-one x24.06 [13) 23.45 (20) .61 Twenty-two 21.60 1 [ 51 24.78 (28). 3.18 Twenty-three 23.12 [16); 25.41 (17) 2.29 Twenty-four 24.13 [23) 24.70 (10) .57 Twenty-five 24.85 [13) 23.95 (20) .90 Twenty-six .27.50 ( 2) 24.10 (31) 3.40 Twenty-seven 24.00 i 4) 24.36 (29) «36 Twenty-eight 24.08 (12) 24.43 (21) .35 Twenty-nine 23.71 117) 24.94 (16) 1.17 Thirt y 23.92 (28): 26.40 ( 5 ) ' 2.48 / Computation Arithmetic Mean Achievement and Mean Differences Between Boys who Answered "No" and Boys who Answered "Yes" on each TASC Item TASC Item .Mean 1 Achievement Mean "No" Ss N "Yes',' SB N Difference One 23.45 (13) 22.69 (13* .76 Tv/o 26.37 ( 8) 24.61 (18) 1.76 Three 25.40 (10) 25.00 (16> .40 Four 25.64 (14) 24.58 (12) 1.03 Five 25.32 (22) 24.25 ( 4) 1.07 Six 25.50 (10) 25.06 (16) .44 Seven 26.40 (10) 24.33 (16) 2.02 Eight 26.50 (10) 24.31 (m 2.19 Nine 25.17 (18) 25.12 ( 8) .05 Ten 25.00 (.13) 25.50 ( 3) .50 Eleven 25.53 (15) 22.45 (11) 3*08 Twelve 26.44 (18) 22.24 C 3) 4.20 Thirteen 24.50 ( 8) 25.44 (18) .94 Fourteen 25.50 (.18) 24.37 ( 8) 1.13 F i f t e e n 24.91 (22) 26.50 '( 4) 1.59 Sixteen 26.87 ( 8) 24.39 (13) 2.43 Seventeen 24.52 (21) 27.80 C 5) 3.28 Eighteen 26.47 (15) 23.18 (11) 3.29 Nineteen 24.84 (19) 26.00 ( 7) 1,16 v i TASC Item Mean Achievement Mean "No" Ss N "Yes«: Ss W Differences Twenty 25.25 ('. 8) 25.11 (18), .14 Twenty-one 24.78" 1 ;.i9) 26.14 C 7) 1.36 Twenty-two 21.00 [ 4), 27.27 (22) 6.27* Twenty-three 24.24 [17) 26.79' C 9) 2.55 Twenty-four 24.82 [22) 27.00 t 4); 2.18 Twenty-five 25.13 ti5) 25.18 in) .05 Twenty-six 25.00 i 4) 25.18 (22) .18 Twenty-seven 23.60 ( 5) 23.61 (21) .01 Twenty-eight 23.92 (12) 26.21 (14) 2.29 Twenty-nine 24.38 (13) 25.92 (13) 1.54 T h i r t y 24.35 (20) 27.66 ( 6) 3.31 * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105817/manifest

Comment

Related Items