achievement goals as mediators of the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety

207

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2012), 82, 207–224C© 2011 The British Psychological Society

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Achievement goals as mediatorsof the relationship between competencebeliefs and test anxiety

David W. Putwain1∗ and Wendy Symes2

1Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, UK2The School of Education, University of Manchester, UK

Background. Previous work suggests that the expectation of failure is related tohigher test anxiety and achievement goals grounded in a fear of failure.

Aim. To test the hypothesis, based on the work of Elliot and Pekrun (2007), that therelationship between perceived competence and test anxiety is mediated by achievementgoal orientations.

Sample. Self-report data were collected from 275 students in post-compulsoryeducation following courses in A Level Psychology.

Results. Competence beliefs were inversely related to the worry and tensioncomponents of test anxiety, both directly and indirectly through a performance-avoidance goal orientation. A mastery-avoidance goal orientation offered an indirectroute from competence beliefs to worry only.

Conclusion. These findings provide partial support for Elliot and Pekrun’s (2007)model. Although significant mediating effects were found for mastery-avoidance andperformance-avoidance goals, they were small and there may be other mechanisms toaccount for the relations between competence beliefs and test anxiety.

In this paper, we report on a project in which we asked a sample of English students inpost-compulsory education to report on their competence beliefs, achievement goals,and test anxiety. Competence beliefs refer to judgements over ones’ ability, achievementgoals to the motivation for engaging in academic work and test anxiety to the tendencyto perceive performance-evaluative situations as threatening. Elliot and Pekrun (2007)propose a model in which the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxietyis mediated through achievement goals. They propose that the anticipation of failurearising from low-competence beliefs is likely to be associated with achievement goalorientations characterized by a fear of failure. This could be a fear of personal or task-based failure (a mastery-avoidance goal) or normative failure (a performance-avoidance

∗Correspondence should be addressed to Dr David W. Putwain, Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge HillUniversity, St. Helen’s Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02021.x

208 David W. Putwain and Wendy Symes

goal), as well as an attempt to overcome a fear of failure by focusing on outperformingone’s peers or classmates (a performance-approach goal). The orientation towards failurecharacterized by mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals is likely, in turn,to be associated with stronger test anxiety. Using the data we have collected, we offer atest of Elliot and Pekrun’s (2007) model.

The achievement goals frameworkAchievement goals theory is one of a number of contemporary approaches to understandacademic motivation and seeks to differentiate between qualitatively different reasons,purposes, or aims for engaging in academic work or study. Elliot and McGregor (2001)propose a 2 × 2 framework in which distinct performance and mastery goals canbe distinguished along approach and avoidance dimensions. Mastery goals have a self-referential focus where students judge progress against their own standards and/orprevious task performance. The mastery-approach goal represents a focus on learning anddeveloping task competence whereas the mastery-avoidance goal represents a focus onavoiding misunderstanding or task incompetence. Performance goals, in contrast, havea normative focus. The performance-approach goal represents a focus on performingbetter than classmates/peers and a performance-avoidance goal represents a focus onnot performing worse than classmates/peers.

Individual antecedents of achievement goal orientation are grounded in temperamentand motive disposition (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot &Thrash, 2002). Avoidance temperament and/or a motivational disposition towards afear of failure result in avoidance goals (both mastery and performance). Approachtemperament and/or a motivational disposition towards the need for achievement leadto approach goals (again both mastery and performance). However, a performance-approach orientation may also be adopted when a student attempts to overcome anavoidance temperament and/or fear of failure by focusing on normative success, aprocess referred to as valence override. In Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) hierarchicalframework, achievement orientations correspond to the overall aims for engaging inacademic study that may consist of several different reasons such as gaining approvalfrom parents, attaining grades required for college or university, avoiding low self-worth judgements, and so forth. This framework offers a subtle difference to otherperspectives on goal orientations (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Midgley,1996; Thorkildsen & Nichols, 1998), which view aims, reasons, and purposes withequivalence.

A salient question in the extant literature concerns what might be the most adaptivegoal, or profile of goals, for motivational, affective, cognitive, self-regulatory, andachievement outcomes. Prior to the approach–avoidance distinction, early researchtended to favour mastery goals as the most adaptive (e.g., Ames, 1992; Pintrich,2000). The distinction between approach and avoidance performance goals, however,highlighted how performance-approach goals may be adaptive, if instrumental outcomesare associated with an improved achievement (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &Harackiewicz, 1996). Indeed, some research has suggested performance approach as abetter predictor of achievement than a mastery goal. The more recent development ofa mastery-approach goal has coincided with a multiple goal perspective suggesting thata combination of goals may be the most adaptive (for a brief review see Pintrich, 2003).Whether a particular goal orientation or profile of goals is adaptive for performance willalso depend on the nature of the assessment task (Butler, 2007), how students adapt

Perceived competence and test anxiety 209

their goal orientation to match the demands of the situation (Barron & Harackiewicz,2001) and cultural influences (Liu, Wang, Tan, Ee, & Koh, 2009).

Test anxietyTest anxiety refers to a tendency to appraise examinations and other assessmentsituations as threatening (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). It is considered as a sub-clinicalform of anxiety sharing similar characteristics with other social-evaluation anxietiesincluding sports performance and public speaking (Zeidner & Mathews, 2005). Testanxiety has been defined as, or seen as synonymous with, a fear of failure (e.g., Meijer,2001; Sarason, 1984; Zeidner, 1998). Other descriptions of the phenomenology of testanxiety (e.g., Lowe, Lee, Witteborg, Pritchard, Luhr, Cullinan, et al., 2008; Putwain,2009; Spielberger, 1966) including ego/esteem threats and being judged in a derogatoryway by others indicate, however, that an exclusive focus on the fear of failure mightoffer a somewhat narrow view of test anxiety. Nonetheless, fear of failure offers a clearlink between the test anxiety and achievement goals framework (see Hagtvet, 1983;Hagtvet & Benson, 1997; Putwain, 2008a). Test anxiety can be viewed as an importanttopic in its own right, as in its extreme form it can represent an important threat topersonal well-being. Much of the significance of test anxiety, however, is derived fromits potentially debilitating impact on learning and achievement (e.g., Hembree, 1988;Putwain, 2008b).

Test anxiety is widely considered to be a multi-dimensional construct, consistingof distinct but related cognitive and affective-physiological components, referred toin the literature as ‘worry’ and ‘emotionality’, respectively (Liebert & Morris, 1967;Spielberger, Gonzalez, Taylor, Algaze, & Anton, 1978). Worry refers to negative thoughtsconcerning failure and emotionality to the perception of physiological arousal. Theinverse relationship between test anxiety and achievement is frequently stronger in theworry component, an effect usually attributed to reduced working memory capacity andefficiency (Eysenck, Santos, Derekeshan, & Calvo, 2007; Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, &Hadwin, 2008).

The model of test anxiety used in this study (Benson, Moulin-Julian, Schwarzer, Seipp,& El-Zahhar, 1992; Sarason, 1984) has moved beyond a worry/emotionality conceptu-alization to distinguish between two cognitive components (worry and test-irrelevantthinking) and two affective-physiological components (tension and bodily symptoms).The worry/test-irrelevant thinking distinction allow for distracting thoughts that do notdirectly concern failure, such as daydreaming about a forthcoming holiday (test-irrelevantthinking), as well those that do (worry). The tension/bodily symptoms distinction allowsfor a distinction between specific features of anxiety such as headaches, a dry mouth,and trembling (bodily symptoms) as well as more general feelings of autonomic arousalassociated with anxiety (tension). Research using this four-factor conceptualization oftest anxiety to examine relations with examination performance has yet to establish anunequivocal pattern of results, where inverse relations have been reported with worryonly (Keogh, Bond, French, Richards, & Davis, 2004), worry, test-irrelevant thinking, andtension (McIlroy, Bunting, & Adamson, 2000) and worry and bodily symptoms (Putwain,Connors, & Symes, 2010).

Linking test anxiety and achievement goalsElliot and Pekrun (2007) outline the possible relationships between achievement goalsand test anxiety (using the worry/emotionality distinction) based on the interpretative


framework established by different achievement goals. The anticipation of failureassociated with performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance goals makes them likelyto elicit test anxiety, more strongly for the performance-avoidance goal due to the addedpressure of the normative focus. Furthermore, when viewed from the perspective ofvalue-control theory, the anticipation of failure involved in avoidance goal orientationsalso involves the appraisal of low-perceived controllability resulting in greater testanxiety, particularly for performance-avoidance goal due to the focus on learningoutcome rather than activity (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006).1 Evidence is supportive ofthe prediction that avoidance goals and test anxiety are related (e.g., Elliot & McGregor,1999, 2001; McGregor & Elliot, 2002) but not that a stronger relation is found forperformance avoidance. Three studies have reported a stronger relation with masteryavoidance than performance avoidance (Eum & Rice, 2011; Proost, Derous, Schreurs,Hagtvet, & De Witte, 2008; Putwain, Woods, & Symes, 2010). It is therefore possible thatthe self-referenced nature of the mastery-avoidance goal increases rather than decreasesevaluative pressure or that the distinction employed by value-control theory betweenlearning tasks and learning outcomes refer to the different reasons why a particular goalorientation is adopted rather than the goal iteself.

The anticipation of success and higher levels of perceived controllability associatedwith approach goal orientations suggests that they will be unrelated to test anxiety.Evidence generally supports the prediction that a mastery-approach goal is unrelated totest anxiety, but evidence for the relationship between a performance-approach goaland test anxiety is equivocal. Several studies report weak or no relationships betweenperformance-approach goal and test anxiety (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Eum & Rice,2011; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Sideridis, 2005) and a positive relationship in others(e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Putwain et al., 2010). Elliot and Pekrun (2007) offer apossible explanation for these findings whereby some students attempt to overcometheir fear of failure by focusing on a competitive desire to outperform their peers orclassmates (i.e., a performance-approach goal). In this instance, even though there hasbeen a valence override (where fear of failure elicits an approach rather than avoidancegoal), a performance-approach goal orientation remains grounded in a fear of failure andhence is associated with greater test anxiety. Elliot and Pekrun (2007) also suggest thatit would be more likely associated with the emotionality component of test anxiety, notthe worry component, presumably because the student is anticipating relative successrather than failure (autonomic arousal can be related to positive academic emotions –see Ciani, Easter, Summers, & Posada, 2009).

Perceptions of competence are relevant to both test anxiety and achievementgoals. Evidence suggests that a perception of low competence is related to highertest anxiety, consistent with the prediction that the evaluative situation is appraisedas more threatening due to the increased likelihood of failure (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic,Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008; Goetz, Preckel, Zeidner, & Schleyer, 2008; Hembree,1988; Putwain et al., 2010; Schwarzer, Mueller, & Greenglass, 1999; Zeidner & Schleyer,1999). Furthermore, a perception of low competence is likely to orientate a student tothe likelihood of failure and the adoption of avoidance goals whereas the perceptionof high competence and the anticipation of success would orientate a student towardsapproach goals (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & Church, 1997). The test anxiety and achievement

1 Mastery-avoidance goals were not directly addressed in Pekrun et al. (2006), which used the trichotmous framework ofachievement goals, but from the perspective of value-control theory would be considered to have a task rather than outcomefocus.


goals constructs, therefore, are not only linked by a fear of failure, but also by perceptionsof competence. Given that the perception of competence is theorized as an antecedent ofboth test anxiety and achievement goals, and test anxiety as an outcome of achievementgoals (although inevitably these will interact reciprocally over time), it would seem likelythat achievement goals mediate the relations between perceived competence and testanxiety.

There is some debate in the literature whether the relations between competencebeliefs and outcomes should be viewed as direct and moderated by achievement goals(e.g., Nicholls, 1983, 1984) or indirect and mediated by achievement goals (e.g., Elliot,2005; Elliot & Church, 1997). A recent study examining the possibility that competencebeliefs and achievement goals interact in predicting test anxiety found only a singleinteraction (Putwain & Daniels, 2010). Furthermore, this interaction was unrelated tothe main, worry and emotionality, components of test anxiety. In short, there is littleevidence for the moderational hypothesis using the 2 × 2 framework for achievementgoal orientations and so the approach we have adopted here, based on the theorizingof Elliot and colleagues, views achievement goals as mediators of competence beliefsand other outcomes (such as test anxiety). Rather than viewing achievement goalsbased on a fear of failure (i.e., performance avoidance, performance approach, andmastery avoidance) as strengthening the relationship between competence beliefs andtest anxiety, we examine whether these goals explain a significant proportion of thevariance in the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety.

Aim of the current studyThe aim of the current study is a test of the hypothesis that achievement goals mediatean expected inverse relationship between perceived competence and test anxiety. Thisresearch offers an extension of existing work by incorporating into a single modelthe relations between competence beliefs and achievement goals outlined in Elliot(2005), and the relations between achievement goals and test anxiety outlined inElliot and Pekrun (2007). Based on this theorizing, an a priori model is diagrammedin Figure 1 using the four-factor model of test anxiety (the expected direction ofrelationships is indicated using + /− symbols). The anticipation of failure characterizedby low-competence beliefs is likely to be associated with avoidance goal orientations

+ +

+ -

+

+

- +

+

+

Mastery-approach

Mastery-avoidance

Performance-approach

Performance-avoidance

Emotionality

Worry +

CompetenceBeliefs

Tension

BodilySymptoms

Figure 1. The hypothesized relationships between achievement goals and test anxiety (Elliot & Pekrun,2007).


for either personal/task reasons (a mastery-avoidance goal) or normative reasons (aperformance-avoidance goal). We therefore expect to find inverse relationships be-tween competence beliefs and a mastery-avoidance goal orientation, and competencebeliefs and a performance-avoidance goal orientation. The expectation of successcharacterized by high-competence beliefs is likely to be associated with achievementgoals characterized by an approach orientation, hence we would expect competencebeliefs to be positively related to a mastery-approach goal orientation. While onemay expect high-competence beliefs to be positively associated with a performance-approach goal orientation as well, the picture becomes more complex as, accordingto Elliot and Pekrun (2007), some students may adopt a performance approach inan attempt to overcome their fear of failure. Accordingly, we offer no a prioriprediction regarding competence beliefs and a performance-approach goal orientation,but have included the path in the a priori model as a test of the valence overridehypothesis.

The orientation towards failure characterized by mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals is likely, in turn, to be associated with stronger test anxiety. We wouldtherefore expect to find positive relations between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance achievement goal orientations and test anxiety. Furthermore, we expect thepositive relation between a mastery-avoidance goal orientation and test anxiety to bestronger than for a performance-avoidance goal orientation and test anxiety. Elliot andPekrun (2007) based their predictions on a two-factor (worry/emotionality) model of testanxiety. When viewed from the perspective of the four-factor model used in this research,we expect that performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance goals would be positivelyrelated to worry, tension, and bodily symptoms components of test anxiety, but nottest-irrelevant thoughts (as these are less concerned with failure). We expect a mastery-approach goal orientation to be unrelated to test anxiety and have not included this pathin the a priori model. Given the equivocal findings reported in the literature regardingthe relations between a performance-approach goal orientation and test anxiety, we donot make any a priori predictions, but have left the path in the a priori model as a testof the valence override hypothesis. Elliot and Pekrun (2007) suggest that in a valenceoverride, performance-approach would only be related to the emotionality componentof test anxiety, corresponding to tension and bodily symptoms in the four-factor modelof test anxiety used here. As we are predicting a fully mediated model, we have notincluded direct paths from competence beliefs to test anxiety in the a priori model.

MethodParticipantsStudents following courses in General Certificate of Education (GCE) courses in Psychol-ogy were recruited from three sixth-form colleges. These 2-year courses represent thefirst tier of post-compulsory education in England and Wales and typically represent thequalifications on which university admission is offered. Exit qualifications are offeredat the end of the first year of study (Advanced Subsidiary Level) and the second yearof study (Advanced Level). These qualifications are referred colloquially as ‘AS’ and ‘Alevels’ and due to their educational and/or occupational implications can be consideredas a high-stakes assessments. A total of N = 275 AS and A level students participated(n = 149 female students and n = 126 male students) with a mean age of 17.1 years (SD= .70).


Table 1. Measurement models

Models � 2 df � 2/df CFI RMSEA

Test anxiety 305.74∗∗∗ 164 1.86 .93 .06Competence beliefs 3.01 (ns) 2 1.51 .99 .05Achievement goals: 2 × 2 framework 173.91∗∗∗ 48 3.62 .91 .08Achievement goals: Unidimensional 675.58∗∗∗ 54 12.51 .54 .21Achievement goals: Approach and avoidance 545.63∗∗∗ 53 10.30 .64 .18Achievement goals: Performance and mastery 470.88∗∗∗ 53 8.89 .69 .17

∗∗∗p � .001.

InstrumentsCompetence beliefs in Psychology were measured using a scale adapted from theAcademic Self-description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1990, 1992). This instrument isdesigned to measure the academic self-concept of adolescent students in a number ofdifferent subjects. Psychology was not included on the original instrument and so ascale comprising of five items was adapted. Students respond to statements (e.g., ‘I learnthings quickly in Psychology’) on an 8-point scale of ‘definitely false’ to ‘definitely true’.Excellent psychometric properties have been reported for both the original measure(e.g., Byrne, 1996) and the adapted sub-scale (Putwain et al., 2010). In the presentstudy, psychometric properties were acceptable (see Table 1 for factorial validity andTable 2 for reliability coefficients).

Achievement goals were measured using the Achievement Goals Questionnaire(AGQ: Elliot & McGregor, 2001) in which items were made specific to Psychology. This12-item instrument provides scores on four goal orientations (three items per scale):a performance-approach goal (e.g., ‘it is important for me to do well in Psychologycompared to others’), a performance-avoidance goal (e.g., ‘I just want to avoid doingpoorly in Psychology.’), a mastery-approach goal (e.g., ‘It is important for me to

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and bivariate correlations for test anxiety,achievement goals, and competence beliefs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Worry — .34∗∗ .68∗∗ .53∗∗ .08 .37∗∗ .18∗∗ .13∗ −.30∗∗

2. Test-irrelevant thinking — .10 .18∗∗ −.10 .03 −.13∗ −.13∗ −.17∗∗

3. Tension — .57∗∗ .17∗∗ .35∗∗ .25∗∗ .17∗∗ −.19∗∗

4. Bodily symptoms — .08 .14∗ .13∗ .21∗∗ −.085. Mastery approach — .37∗∗ .43∗∗ .43∗∗ .40∗∗

6. Mastery avoidance — .38∗∗ .22∗∗ −.25∗∗

7. Performance-approach — .44∗∗ −.15∗

8. Performance-avoidance — −.31∗∗

9. Competence beliefs —

Mean 2.36 2.21 2.77 1.66 5.18 4.19 5.28 4.63 4.70SD 0.65 0.78 0.82 0.67 1.18 1.48 1.18 1.31 1.23Cronbach’s � .81 .65 .81 .79 .86 .79 .76 .79 .88

Note: ∗p � .05; ∗∗p � .01.


understand the content of Psychology as thoroughly as possible’), and a mastery-avoidance goal (e.g., ‘Sometimes I’m afraid that I may not understand the content ofPsychology as thoroughly as I’d like’). Students respond to statements on a 7-pointscale of ‘not true at all of me’ to ‘very true of me’. The AGQ has been widely used inachievement goals research (for a review see Elliot, 2005) and demonstrated excellentpsychometric properties (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). In the present study, psychometricproperties were acceptable (see Table 1 for factorial validity and Table 2 for reliabilitycoefficients).

Test anxiety was measured using the Revised Test Anxiety scale (RTA; Bensonet al., 1992; Hagtvet & Benson, 1997). This 20-item instrument provides scores onfour components of test anxiety: two cognitive, worry and test-irrelevant thinking,and two affective physiological, tension and bodily symptoms. Worry consists of sixitems (e.g., ‘During exams I find myself thinking about the consequences of failing’)and test-irrelevant thinking four items (e.g., ‘While taking exams I sometimes thinkabout being somewhere else’). Tension (e.g., ‘During exams I feel very tense’) andspecific bodily symptoms of anxiety (e.g., I have great difficulty breathing during anexam’) both consist of five items each. Students respond to statements on a 4-point scale‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. The RTA has been widely used in contemporary testanxiety research (e.g., Keogh et al., 2004) and demonstrated excellent psychometricproperties (Benson & El-Zahhar, 1994; Hagtvet & Benson, 1997). In the present study,psychometric properties were all acceptable (see Table 1 for factorial validity and Table 2for reliability coefficients) with the exception of test-irrelevant thinking, where thereliability coefficient was marginally under the acceptable level (� = .65).

ProcedureSixth-form colleges were recruited via a mailshot inviting colleges to participate inresearch projects and permission to collect data granted at institutional and departmentallevels. Questionnaire order was counterbalanced and administered on a single occasionby researchers in the students’ usual classroom environment along with an informationand individual consent sheet. Contact details for the lead researcher were provided toallow retrospective withdrawal for up to 3 months following data collection, althoughno students took up this option.

ResultsMeasurement modelsThe measurement properties of the self-report questionnaires were examined usingconfirmatory factor analysis. We report one absolute fit measure (� 2) however as thisindex can be easily distorted; we also report one relative fit measure, the comparative fitindex (CFI), and one measure based on the non-central � 2 distribution, the root meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA). A good model fit is indicated by RMSEA ≤ .05 andCFI ≥ .95 and an acceptable model fit is indicated by RMSEA ≤ .08 and CFI ≥ .90 (Byrne,2010), although others suggest RMSEA ≤ .10 is acceptable (Blunch, 2008). Furthermore,an index of � 2/df can be calculated in which smaller values indicate better fittingmodels. By these criteria, the RTA showed a good model fit and competence beliefs, anexcellent model fit; however, fit indices for the AGQ were at the bottom of the rangeconsidered as acceptable. In order to examine whether model fit could be improved forachievement goals, factor loadings were examined to confirm that there were no items


loading <.4 and three alternative models were tested. The AQG model based on the2 × 2 framework offered a significantly better fit than either the unidimensional model:�� 2(6) = 501.67, p < .001, the approach/avoidance model: �� 2(5) = 371.72, p <

.001, or the performance/mastery model: �� 2(5) = 296.69, p < .001, and subsequentanalyses proceeded using the four-factor AGQ of performance and mastery goals alongwith approach–avoidance dimensions.

A potential weakness of research such as this, where all data were collected usingthe same method (self-reports in this case) is that of common method variance, asystematic error that may distort relationships and coefficients (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). One diagnostic test that can be used to identify the presenceof common method variance is the Harman single factor test. Items are entered intoa principal components analysis and the presence of a general factor accounting for alarge proportion of covariance may indicate the presence of systematic error relatedto a common method (Podsakoff et al., 2003). When all RTA, AGQ, and competencebeliefs items were entered into a principal components analysis with a promax rotation(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) = .85), nine factors were extracted with eigenvalues >.1broadly corresponding to the four test-anxiety components, the four achievementgoal orientations, and competence beliefs. The first factor accounted for 20.8% of thevariance. These findings would suggest that common method variance was not producinga systematic error in this research.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlationsDescriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and bivariate correlations are reportedin Table 2. As expected, significant inverse relationships were reported betweencompetence beliefs and test anxiety (with the exception of bodily symptoms). Alsoconsistent with predictions, a significant positive relationship was reported betweencompetence beliefs and a mastery-approach goal, and significant inverse relationshipsbetween competence beliefs and mastery-avoidance and also performance-avoidancegoals. A noteworthy finding here was the significant inverse relationship betweencompetence beliefs and a performance-approach goal, which is possibly indicative of avalence override. That is, students with low-competence beliefs are possibly adoptinga performance-approach goal in an attempt to overcome their fear. Positive intercor-relations were reported between the four test-anxiety components, tension and test-irrelevant thoughts excepted, and the four achievement goals, including an unexpectedpositive intercorrelation between a mastery-approach goal and a performance-avoidancegoal. A complex pattern of results emerged between test anxiety and achievement goals.Worry and bodily symptoms showed a similar pattern of results; unrelated to a mastery-approach goal, but as expected, positively related to mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. Test-irrelevant thoughts were unrelated tomastery goals, but expectedly, were inversely related to performance goals. Tension waspositively related to all four achievement goals.

Mediational analysesThree structural equation models were tested: Model 1, the fully mediated a priorimodel proposed in Figure 1 based on theoretical formulations. Model 2, a direct modelin which direct paths were specified from competence beliefs to test anxiety, and fromachievement goals to test anxiety, but no mediated paths from competence beliefs to test


Table 3. Structural equation models

Models � 2 df � 2/df CFI RMSEA PNFI

1. Fully mediated 966.48∗∗∗ 569 1.70 .90 .05 .672. Direct 1070.39∗∗∗ 570 1.88 .88 .06 .623. Partially mediated 955.15∗∗∗ 566 1.69 .91 .05 .684. Partially mediated with ns paths deleted 971.50∗∗∗ 572 1.69 .90 .05 .68

∗∗∗p � .001.

anxiety via achievement goals. Model 3, a partially mediated model, similar to Figure 1,but also containing direct paths from competence beliefs to test anxiety. Model-fit indicesare reported in Table 3, which include those used in the measurement models (� 2,RMSEA and CFI) and an additional index of parsimony, the parsimony normed fit index(PNFI ≥ .6 are considered as acceptable increasing values indicate greater parsimony –see Blunch, 2008). The partially mediated model offered a significantly better fit thaneither the direct model: �� 2(3) = 115.33, p < .001 or the fully mediated model: �� 2(2) =11.33, p = .001. Non-significant paths were reported between bodily symptoms andperformance avoidance (p = .38), mastery avoidance (p = .71), performance approach(p = .09), and competence (p = .34) and between performance approach and tension(p = .43). When these paths were deleted, the retested model showed a significantreduction in model fit: �� 2(6) = 16.35, p = .01 and so Model 3, the partially mediatedmodel including non-significant paths was accepted as the final model.

Model 3 shows both direct and indirect relationships between competence beliefsand two components of test anxiety, worry and tension (significant paths are diagrammedin Figure 2). Competence beliefs showed a significant direct inverse relation with worry(� = −.32, SE = .12, p = .01) and tension (� = −.19, SE = .15, p = .05). Competence

-.19

-.32

.43

-.26

-.22

-.32

.21

.20 .31

.30

Irrelevantthinking

Tension

BodilySymptoms

WorryMastery-approach

Mastery-avoidance

Performance-approach

Performance-avoidance

CompetenceBeliefs

Figure 2. A partially mediated relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety (onlysignificant paths are shown).


Table 4. Mediation tests with effect sizes

Mediator/outcome �� 95% CIs R2

Mastery avoidance/worry −.05 −.13 to −.01 .04Mastery avoidance/tension −.07 −.18 to .01 .04Performance avoidance/worry −.06 −.15 to −.01 .08Performance avoidance/tension −.09 −.23 to −.01 .03

beliefs also showed an indirect relationship with worry and tension through mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals. Competence beliefs were inversely associ-ated with a mastery-avoidance goal (� = −.26, SE = .26, p = .01), which in turn was pos-itively associated with worry (� = .20, SE = .04, p = .04) and tension (� = .21, SE = .06,p = .03). Competence beliefs were inversely associated with performance-avoidancegoal (� = −.22, SE = .23, p = .01), which in turn was positively associated with worry(� = .31, SE = .05, p = .008) and tension (� = .30, SE = .08, p = .01). Competencebeliefs were also positively associated with a mastery-approach goal (� = .43, SE = .31,p = .003) and inversely associated with a performance-approach goal (� = −.32, SE =.23, p = .008); goals that do not play a mediating role.

This model suggests that two achievement goal orientations, a mastery-avoidancegoal and a performance-avoidance goal, could possibly mediate the relationship betweencompetence beliefs and two test-anxiety components, worry and tension. We conducteda series of formal mediation tests using the Prodclin software (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams,& Lockwood, 2007) to generate a point estimate of the mediated effect. This approach isconsidered a more powerful test of mediation that the traditional Sobel test (MacKinnon,Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Asymmetric confidence intervals around the product ofunstandardized paths coefficients from predictor to mediator and mediator to outcome(��) are reported in Table 4 along with an accompanying measure of effect size (R2),calculated using the procedure suggested in Fairchild and McQullin (2010).2 Confidenceintervals, which do not include zero, provide evidence for significant mediation (p <

.05). These tests suggested that a mastery-avoidance goal was a significant mediator of therelationship between competence beliefs and worry and between competence beliefs,however the proportion of variance accounted for by a mastery-avoidance goal wassmall (R2 = .04). A mastery-avoidance goal did not emerge as a significant mediator ofthe relationship between competence beliefs and tension. A performance-avoidance goalwas a significant mediator of the relationship between competence beliefs and worry,accounting for a small proportion of variance (R2 = .08) and between competencebeliefs and tension, also accounting for a small proportion of variance (R2 = .03).

DiscussionThe aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that achievement goals mediatedthe relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety. Results supported apartially mediated hypothesis, where performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance

2 Cohen (1988) suggests that R2 values of .02 can be interpreted as small, .13 as moderate, and .26 as large.


goal orientations emerged as significant mediators of the relations between competencebeliefs and test anxiety, but only accounted for a small proportion of the variance inthe competence beliefs – test-anxiety relationship. However, even when performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance goal orientations were accounted for, direct inverserelations remained between competence beliefs and test anxiety. Thus, students whoanticipate failure also report becoming more worried and tensed during examinationsand this is partly explained by their goal to avoid performing worse than their peersor classmates and in the case of worry, partly by their goal to avoid personal ortask incompetence. As expected, a significant positive relation was reported betweencompetence beliefs and a mastery-approach goal indicating that students who anticipatesuccess also endorse a goal to develop personal or task competence. A significantinverse relation was also reported between competence beliefs and a performance-approach goal, suggesting students who anticipated failure were more likely to endorsea competitive goal to outperform their peers or classmates. A performance-approach goalwas not a mediating variable in this study, however, as the paths between performanceapproach and test anxiety (tension and bodily symptoms) were non-significant.

These findings offer partial support for Elliott and Pekrun’s (2007) model ofcompetence beliefs, achievement goals, and test anxiety. First, the expected patternof relations was found between competence beliefs and mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance goal orientations. Thus, students who reportedlow expectations of success in their AS or A Level Psychology also reported a fearof performing worse that their classmates and peers, a fear of not achieving personalstandards and a low appetitive desire for improving their competence. Second, wehad not made an a priori prediction between competence beliefs and a performance-approach goal to account for the previous equivocal findings. The inverse relationreported here between competence beliefs and a performance-approach goal suggeststhat students who reported low expectations of success in their AS or A Level Psychologyalso reported a competitive ambition to outperform their classmates and peers. Thisfinding is consistent with the Elliot and Pekrun’s (2007) valence override hypothesisand also with the hierarchical framework underpinning achievement goals where aperformance-approach goal can be grounded in competing motivational dispositions;fear of failure and the need for achievement (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot& Murayama, 2008). If, however, the inverse relation between competence beliefs anda performance-approach goal was to be accounted for by a valence override, one wouldalso expect to find a significant path between a performance-approach goal and testanxiety, which was not the case. These findings can only be considered, therefore, asproviding tentative support for the valence override hypothesis.

It is also important to highlight that although a significant mediating effect wasreported for mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals, in relative terms, thesize of these mediating effects were small (R2 values reported in Table 4 ranged from.03 to .08), hence it is of little surprise that significant direct relations remained betweencompetence beliefs and test anxiety. That is, the tendency for students anticipatingfailure to experience worry and tension during examinations can be partly explained bya fear of performing worse than their classmates and a fear of not meeting personal/task-based competence standards, but only a small part. Therefore, the proposition ofElliot and Pekrun (2007) that achievement goals would fully mediate relations betweencompetence beliefs and outcomes is not well supported. In the case of test anxiety, itmay be that the anticipation of failure is sufficient to directly result in the appraisal ofexaminations and assessments as threatening. There may also be alternative mechanisms


to account for these inverse relations, including the role of metacognitive beliefs andmaladaptive coping (Mathews, Hillyard, & Campbell, 1999; Spada, Nikcevic, Moneta,& Ireson, 2006), self-worth protection and being judged in a negative way by others(Jackson, 2006; Putwain, 2009).

In addition to the identified support and challenges of Elliot and Pekrun’s (2007)model, this study is also useful for helping to map out the relations between the 2 × 2achievement goal framework and the four-factor conceptualization of test anxiety. Thepattern of correlations where worry, tension, and bodily symptoms were all positivelycorrelated with mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidancegoals were as expected (the correlations for bodily symptoms were weaker than forworry and tension). Two unusual findings stand out however. One is that studentsadopting a mastery-approach goal also reported more tension, suggesting that theelement of test anxiety characterized by physiological arousal is not always interpretednegatively (see Ciani et al., 2009). The other is that students who reported fewer test-irrelevant thoughts also endorsed goals concerned with normative success and failure(although relationships were weak). This finding is difficult to interpret, but suggeststhat that students who are easily distracted (not by failure) are not strongly motivatedby comparing themselves to the performance of their peers and/or classmates. Twofindings we have reported here question the usefulness of test-irrelevant thinking tothe test-anxiety construct. First, the intercorrelations between test-irrelevant thinkingand the other test-anxiety components were relatively small and also non-significantbetween tension and test-irrelevant thinking. Second, the pattern of bivariate correlationsbetween test-irrelevant thinking and a performance-avoidance goal was opposite to thepattern of results that would be expected for a component of test anxiety; that is, test-irrelevant thinking was inversely related to a performance-avoidance goal, not positivelycorrelated as expected. Test anxiety may be characterized by distraction and a lack oftask focus (e.g., Keogh et al., 2004), but these findings suggest that this aspect of testanxiety is not well captured with the test-irrelevant thinking component.

The findings from both the bivariate correlations and the structural equation modelhelp to clarify these relations further, that in the four-factor model of test anxiety, itis worry and tension components that are principally related to achievement goals.We anticipated that the relations between a mastery-avoidance goal and test anxietywould be stronger than for a performance-avoidance goal and test anxiety and thepattern of bivariate correlations supported this prediction). However, in the path model(see Figure 2), which accounts for the shared variance between the four achievementgoal orientations and the four test-anxiety components, coefficients are stronger forthe relation between a performance-approach goal and test anxiety than for a mastery-approach goal and test anxiety. Finally, we would like to briefly comment on the positiveintercorrelations between the four achievement goals. Positive correlations wouldbe expected for goals with shared antecedents: performance approach, performanceavoidance, and mastery avoidance are all grounded in fear of failure as an antecedentand mastery approach, mastery avoidance, and performance approach are grounded inachievement need. The finding that performance avoidance and mastery approach werepositively correlated is somewhat surprising given that they share unique antecedents(fear of failure and achievement need, respectively) and suggests students may have beenadopting multiple goals (see Pintrich, 2003).

The principal limitation of this study is that the data are correlated from a singlewave of data collection. The variables under study here do not readily acquiesce toexperimental manipulation and so it is desirable to collect different variables under


separate waves of data collection to establish a temporal precedence. Even then, as wenoted in the introduction to this paper, the variables under study here are likely to interactin a reciprocal fashion so ultimately a multi-variable, multi-wave, longitudinal design isrequired to establish causal relations between variables. Nonetheless, the findings wehave presented here are relevant in providing a preliminary test of Elliot and Pekrun’s(2007) model and helping to further understanding of the relations between competencebeliefs, test anxiety, and achievement goals.

Although the primary aim of this study was theoretical, two broad implications can beconsidered for educational practice. First, interventions designed to reduce test anxiety,either for its deleterious effects on well-being or performance, usually focus on themanifest anxiety (e.g., Ergene, 2003; Vagg & Spielberger, 1995). Focusing the target ofintervention on competence beliefs may, however, be a plausible alternative (see Marsh,2006 for a review of interventions targeted at competence beliefs). Such a strategymay be more easily implemented by staff at schools and colleges as it does not rely onspecialist psychological training required by cognitive and/or behavioural techniques.Second, despite the assumption that practices promoting peer competition and/orcomparison are usually associated with negative outcomes (e.g., Martin, 2003), therewas no relationship between a performance-approach goal and test anxiety observed inthe findings of this study. Thus, it may be the case that a normative or competitive focusis acceptable for highly competent students or if presented with an achievement, notfailure, orientation.

In summary, this study has shown that competence beliefs are inversely associatedwith test anxiety and mastery-avoidance, performance-avoidance, and performance-approach goals. High-competence beliefs are positively associated with a mastery-approach goal. Mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals partially mediatedthe relations between competence beliefs and test anxiety; however, the size of the medi-ated effect was small. We also found some tentative evidence for a valence override in thepositive relationship between competence beliefs and performance approach, but thiswas not continued to a positive relation between performance approach and test anxiety.

ReferencesAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing

multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–722.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706

Benson, J., Moulin-Julian, M., Schwarzer, C., Seipp, B., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross validation of arevised test anxiety scale using multi-national samples. In K. A. Hagvet & T. B. Johnsen (Eds.),Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Benson, J., & El-Zahhar, N. (1994). Further refinement and validation of the Revised Test AnxietyScale with cross-validation. Structural Equation Modelling, 1(3), 203–221. doi:10.1080/10705519409539975

Blunch, N. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. London:Sage.

Butler, R. (2006). Are mastery and learning goals adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal construction andthe quality of task engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 595–611.doi:10.1348/000709905X52319

Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: Issues and instrumentation.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applicationsand programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ahmetoglu, G., & Furnham, A. (2008). Little more than personality:Dispositional determinants of test anxiety (the big five, core self-evaluations and self-assessedintelligence). Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 258–263. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.09.002

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ciani, K. D., Easter, M. A., Summers, J. J., & Posada, M. L. (2009). Cognitive biases in theinterpretation of autonomic arousal: A test of the construal bias hypothesis. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 34(1), 9–17. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.001

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goals construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. London: Guildford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievementmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsicmotivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach andavoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4),628–644. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.628

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501

Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustra-tion and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613

Elliot, A. J., & Pekrun, R. (2007). Emotion in the hierarchical model of approach-avoidanceachievement motivation. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education(pp. 57–74). Burlington, MA: Elsevier

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach andavoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5),804–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804

Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta analysis. SchoolPsychology International, 24(3), 313–328. doi:10.1177/01430343030243004

Eum, K., & Rice, K. G. (2011). Test anxiety, perfectionism, goal orientation andacademic performance. Anxiety, Stress and Coping. Advance online publication.doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.488723

Eysenck, M. W., Santos, R., Derekeshan, N., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive perfor-mance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336

Fairchild, A. M., & McQullin, S. D. (2010). Evaluating mediation and moderation effects in shoolpsychology: A presentation of methods and review of current practice. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 48(1), 53–84. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.001

Goetz, T., Preckel, F., Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. (2008). Big fish in big ponds: A multilevel analysisof test anxiety and achievement in special gifted classes. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21(2),185–198. doi: 10.1080/10615800701628827

Hagtvet, K. A. (1983). A construct validation study of test anxiety: A discriminant validation of fearof failure, worry and emotionality. In H. M. Van de Loeg, R. Schwarzer, & C. D. Spielberger(Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 2). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.


Hagtvet, K. A., & Benson, J. (1997). The motive to avoid failure and test anxiety responses: Empiricalsupport for integration of two research traditions. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 10(1), 35–37.doi:10.1080/10615809708249294

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educa-tional Research, 58(1), 47–77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047

Jackson, C. (2006). ‘Lads’ and ‘ladettes’ in school: Gender and a fear of failure. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Keogh, E., Bond, F. W., French, C. C., Richards, A., & Davis, R. E. (2004). Test anxiety, susceptibilityto distraction and examination performance. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 17(3), 241–252.doi:10.1080/10615300410001703472

Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: Adistinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20(4), 975–978.

Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Tan, O. S., Ee, J., & Koh, C. (2009). Understanding students’ motivation inproject work: A 2 × 2 achievement goal approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79(1), 87–106. doi:10.1348/00709908X313767

Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., Witteborg, K. M., Pritchard, K. W., Luhr, M. E., Cullinan, C. M., . . . Janik, M.(2008). The Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents (TAICA): Examination of thepsychemetric properties of a new multidimensional measure of test anxiety among elementaryand secondary school students. Journal of Psycheducational Assessment, 26(3), 215–230.doi:10.1177/0734282907303760

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the productconfidence intervals for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods,39(3), 384–389.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparisonof methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods,7(1), 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(1), 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901 4

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CA: Westview.Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623–636. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and

academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 35–42. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.35

Marsh, H. W. (2006). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The roleof self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, UK: The British Psychological SocietyEducation Section.

Martin, A. J. (2003). Enhancing the educational outcome of boys. Youth Studies Australia, 22(4),27–36.

Mathews, G., Hillyard, E. J., & Campbell, S. E. (1999). Metacognition and maladaptive copingas components of test anxiety. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 6(2), 111–125.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199905)

McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevantprocesses prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.381

McIlroy, D., Bunting, B., & Adamson, G. (2000). An evaluation of the factor structureand predictive validity of a test anxiety scale with reference to students’ past perfor-mance and personality indices. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 17–32.doi:10.1348/00709900157949

Meijer, J. (2001). Learning potential and anxious tendency: Test anxiety as a bias factor in educa-tional testing. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 14(3), 337–362. doi:10.1080/10615800108248361


Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710–718. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89/4/710

Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: A theory and itsapplications for education. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning andmotivation in the classroom (pp. 211–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328

Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J. A. (2008). Processing efficiency theory inchildren: Working memory as a mediator between test anxiety and academic performance.Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21(4), 417–430. doi:10.1080/10615800701847823

Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete emotions: Atheoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583–597.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research andapplications (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biasesin behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journalof Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Proost, K., Derous, E., Schreurs, B., Hagtvet, K. A., & De Witte, K. (2008). Selection testanxiety: Investigating applicants’ self- versus other-referenced anxiety in a real selectionsetting. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 14–25. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00405x

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Multiple goals and multiple pathways in the development of motivationand self-regulated learning. In L. Smith, C. Rogers, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Monograph seriesII: Psychological aspects of education—current trends: Development and motivation: Jointperspectives (pp. 137–153). Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

Putwain, D. W. (2008a). Deconstructing test anxiety. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,13(2), 141–155. doi:10.1080/13632750802027713

Putwain, D. W. (2008b). Test anxiety and academic performance in KS4. Educational Psychologyin Practice, 24(4), 319–334. doi:10.1080/02667360802488765

Putwain, D. W. (2009). Assessment and examination stress in Key Stage 4. British EducationalResearch Journal, 35(3), 391–411. doi:10.1080/01411920802044404

Putwain, D. W., Connors, E., & Symes, W. (2010). Do cognitive distortions mediate the testanxiety and examination performance relationship? Educational Psychology, 30(1), 11–26.doi:10.1080/01443410903328866

Putwain, D. W., & Daniels, R. A. (2010). Is the relationship between competence beliefs and testanxiety influenced by goal orientation? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 8–13.doi:10.1016/jlind.2009.10.006

Putwain, D. W., Woods, K. A., & Symes, W. (2010). Personal and situational predictors of testanxiety of students in post-compulsory education. British Journal of Educational Psychology,80(1), 137–160. doi:10.1348/00709909X466082

Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929–938. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.929

Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general self efficacyon the Internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12(2), 145–161.doi: 10.1080/10615809908248327

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: Newprocedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422


Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Classroom goal structures and hopelessness as predictors of day-to-day ex-perience at school: Differences between students with and without learning disabilities. Inter-national Journal of Educational Research, 43(4–5), 308–328. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.008

Spada, M. M., Nikcevic, A. V., Moneta, G. B., & Ireson, J. (2006). Metacognition as a mediator ofthe effect of test anxiety on a surface approach to studying. Educational Psychology, 26(5),615–624. doi:10.1080/01443410500390673

Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety andbehaviour. New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. J., Algaze, B., & Anton, W. D. (1978). Examinationstress and test anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5)Washington, DC: Hemisphere/Wiley.

Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D.Speilberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment. Bristol:Taylor & Frances.

Thorkildsen, T., & Nichols, J. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs:Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 179–201.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.179

Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1995). Treatment of test anxiety: Application of the transactionalprocess model. In C. D. Spielberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment andtreatment. Bristol: Taylor & Frances.

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.Zeidner, M., & Mathews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),

Handbook of competence and motivation. London: Guildford Press.Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999) Test anxiety in intellectually gifted students. Anxiety, Stress

and Coping, 12(2), 163–189. doi: 10.1080/10615809908248328

Received 5 July 2010; revised version received 21 December 2010

achievement goals as mediators of the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety

Documents