The relationship between math personality, math anxiety, test preparation strategy and medication dose calculations in first year nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were twofold: (1) To determine the predictors of performance on a medication dose calculation test in first year baccalaureate nursing students. The variables studied were: level of math anxiety; math personality; arithmetic ability; program of study; age; and the number of strategies used to prepare for a medication dose calculation test. (2) To determine the factors that affect math anxiety. The variables studied were: arithmetic ability, program of study, math personality, the number of test preparation strategies used and age. Participants consisted of a convenience sample (n = 163) from the first year of a Canadian baccalaureate nursing program. Participants completed a mathematics test, which served as a baseline measure of arithmetic ability. They also completed a series of online questionnaires on math anxiety and math personality, age and program of study (compressed program vs. collaborative program). Participants then completed a medication dose calculation test after which they were asked how many different strategies that they had used in preparation for the test. Performance on the medication dose calculation test was regressed on arithmetic ability, mathematics anxiety, program of study, mathematics personality, the number of test preparation strategies and age. Math anxiety was regressed on pretest score, program of study, math personality, the number of test preparation strategies used and age. The variables found to predict performance on the medication dose calculation test were anxiety and program of study. Of the predictors investigated, only the “Inchworm” math personality and number of test preparation strategies used by students significantly predicted anxiety. Strategies to improve nursing students’ ability to perform dosage calculations should incorporate anxiety-reducing tactics as anxiety was found to be a key predictor of performance on the medication dose calculation test. These strategies should focus on supporting students who possess an “inchworm” math personality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".