Additive and multiplicative effects of working memory and test anxiety on mathematics performance in grade 3 students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the interplay between test anxiety and working memory (WM) on mathematics performance in younger children. A sample of 624 grade 3 students completed a test battery consisting of a test anxiety scale, WM tasks and the Swedish national examination in mathematics for grade 3. The main effects of test anxiety and WM, and the two-way interaction between test anxiety and WM on mathematics performance, were modelled with structural equation modelling techniques. Additionally, the effects were also tested separately on tasks with high WM demands (mathematical problem-solving) versus low WM demands (basic arithmetic). As expected, WM positively predicted mathematics performance in all three models (overall mathematics performance, problem-solving tasks, and basic arithmetic). Test anxiety had a negative effect on problem-solving on the whole sample level but concerning basic arithmetic only students with lower WM were affected by the negative effects of test anxiety on performance. Thus, students with low WM are more vulnerable to the negative effects of test anxiety in low WM tasks like basic arithmetic. The results are discussed in relation to the early identification of 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".