The relationships between self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, and test anxiety: A cross‐lagged study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to illuminate the causal relationships between self-esteem and test anxiety, as well as between general self-efficacy and test anxiety using two-wave longitudinal research design with a sample of 252 Chinese college students. After controlling for gender, grade and autoregressive effects, the results revealed that (1) self-esteem at T1 did not significantly predict test anxiety at T2; (2) general self-efficacy at T1 did not significantly predict test anxiety at T2; (3) test anxiety at T1 significantly and negatively predicted self-esteem at T2; and (4) test anxiety at T1 marginally significantly and negatively predicted general self-efficacy at T2. These results suggest that test anxiety is more likely to affect self-esteem and general self-efficacy rather than vice versa, and that the causal relationship between self-esteem and test anxiety are clearer than the causal relationship between general self-efficacy and test anxiety. However, given the limitation of the longitudinal research using cross-lagged analysis for revealing causality, these results should be viewed with caution.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".