Effectiveness of mindfulness-based coloring for university students’ test anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the effectiveness of mindfulness coloring (mandala), free drawing/coloring, and a noncoloring control activity for university students’ test anxiety, and assessed the relationship of dispositional mindfulness and response to intervention on mindfulness and test anxiety states. Participants: University students (n = 167; 81.4% female; Mage = 21.29 years, SD = 4.46) were randomly assigned to a mandala (n = 57), free draw/coloring (n = 58), or noncoloring condition (n = 52). Methods: Participants completed standardized measures assessing test anxiety and state mindfulness pre–postactivity before completing a test, and two dispositional mindfulness measures. Results: Participants in both coloring conditions reported significant decreases in test anxiety and significant increases in state mindfulness pre–postintervention, and participants in the control condition reported significant increases in test anxiety. Reports of preintervention state mindfulness and test anxiety fully mediated relations between dispositional mindfulness and postintervention state mindfulness and test anxiety. Conclusions: Implications for research and practice on mindfulness coloring and test anxiety are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".