The mediating effect of math self-efficacy on the relationship between parenting style and math anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to investigate the associations among math self-efficacy, parenting style, and math anxiety in primary school children. The sample comprised 400 participants, aged between 10 and 11 years old, from an elementary school in China. Participants completed three self-reported questionnaires on math anxiety, parenting styles and math self-efficacy. The results revealed that rejection was strongly and positively correlated with math anxiety, while emotional warmth was negatively related to math anxiety. Interestingly, math anxiety was found to be related to rejection, with math self-efficacy playing a mediating role in this relationship. Conversely, math self-efficacy played a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and math anxiety, while over protection exhibited no significant correlation with math anxiety. The study also showed that gender differences existed in the level of math anxiety and math self-efficacy, with boys exhibiting lower math anxiety and higher math self-efficacy than girls. These results provide important insights into the development and treatment of math anxiety in primary school children. Specifically, parents and educators should focus on enhancing children's math self-efficacy beliefs, while adopting a parenting style characterized by emotional warmth and low levels of rejection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".