Structural Modeling on the Relationship between Basic Psychological Needs, Academic Engagement, and Test Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some of the key issues in educational psychology are the way of students’ engagement at school, controlling anxiety, and academic achievement. In line with that, the purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship between variables that are basic psychological needs, academic engagement, and test anxiety with regard to structural equation modeling. Therefore, the cluster sampling of 289 female students of Hamedan province was carried out in some phases. Also, the participants were supposed to fill some questionnaires on aspects of academic engagement (Reeve & Tseng, 2011), basic psychological needs (La Guardia, 2000), and Ahwaz inventory test anxiety (2002). The results of structural equation modeling show that exogenous variable of basic psychological needs effects directly positive and significantly on academic engagement; also, effects directly negative and meaningfully on test anxiety. However, the indirect effect on test anxiety because of academic engagement is not significant. The justification is that the relationship between academic engagement and test anxiety is not meaningful. According to findings, basic psychological needs can be highlighted as the most important factor so as to increase academic engagement of students, and decrease their test anxiety.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".