MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380082155 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1197170

The mediating effect of math self-efficacy on the relationship between parenting style and math anxiety

2023· article· en· W4380082155 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Wang, Li Xian, Hui-jiao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaHuzhou University
KeywordsMathematical anxietyAnxietyPsychologySelf-efficacyDevelopmental psychologyParenting stylesClinical psychologyStyle (visual arts)Social psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207