Investigating Parental Pressure and Test Anxiety as Predictors of Examination Malpractice Tendency among University Undergraduate Students in Cross River State, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examination malpractice has been reported as a problem in education systems globally; recently in Nigeria the problem has become alarming and requires more attention. This study investigates parental pressure and test anxiety as predictors of examination malpractice tendency among undergraduate students at the University of Calabar and Cross River State University, Nigeria. Survey design was adopted, the study population comprised 3,068 final year undergraduate students in Faculties of Education in the two Universities (UNICAL = 1,811, CRSU = 1,257) and a sample of 1,534 selected through purposive and accidental sampling procedure. Two research questions and two corresponding hypotheses guided the study. “Parental pressure, Test Anxiety and Examination Malpractice Tendencies Questionnaire (PPTA & EMTQ)” with a Cronbach Alpha reliability estimate of .83 was used to collect data. Data was analyzed using simple linear regression. Results revealed that parental pressure and test anxiety are significant contributors to examination malpractice tendencies among undergraduate students. It was recommended that school counselors in conjunction with school management and Ministry of Education should organize counseling conferences at regular intervals to counsel parents on how to stop undue pressure on their wards, as well as counsel students on how to avoid test anxiety.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".