Test Anxiety: Evaluation of a Low-Threshold Seminar-Based Intervention for Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary students are confronted with a high workload and an extensive number of examinations. However, the skills students gained in high school cannot serve as satisfactory coping strategies during veterinary training. This disparity can lead to test anxiety, as frequently reported by international surveys. In response, a pilot study was carried out to evaluate the effects of a newly developed training seminar to prevent and/or reduce test anxiety. The seminar was offered on a voluntary basis as a low-threshold intervention to first- and second-year veterinary students at three different veterinary schools in Germany. The intervention was offered in two different designs: in either a block or in a semester course containing cognitive and behavioral approaches as well as skill-deficit methods. By conducting a survey and interviews among the participants it was determined whether the contents of the seminar were perceived as helpful for counteracting test anxiety. The potential of the intervention was evaluated using a German test anxiety questionnaire (PAF). The contents of the training seminar were all assessed as beneficial but evaluated slightly differently by first- and second-year students. The results indicate that the seminar prevents and reduces test anxiety significantly compared to the control group students. The greatest effects were achieved by offering the intervention to first-year students and as a block course. As the participants benefit from the intervention independent of the extent of test anxiety, these results suggest that it may be profitable to integrate a workshop on coping strategies in the veterinary curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".