The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-5659.htm

Moderating
Impact of coronavirus and online role of coping
exam anxiety on self-efficacy: the strategy

moderating role of coping strategy

Simple Arora 475
Department of Commerce, Shyam Lal College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Received 24 August 2020
Priya Chaudhary Revised 9 November 2020
16 November 2020
Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India, and Accepted 25 November 2020

Reetesh Kr Singh
Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Business Studies,
University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – The novel coronavirus pandemic is projected to cause an elevation in anxiety levels across the globe.
With everything shifting to online mode, the teaching-learning has also gone virtual. This study aims to analyze the
impact of novel coronavirus and online education on student’s anxiety and self-efficacy, investigate the role of coping
strategies as a moderator between anxiety and self-efficacy. Also, develop and validate an online exam anxiety scale.
Design/methodology/approach – The data is collected by undertaking a cross-sectional survey of 434
higher education students from various universities. For conceptualization of the construct of online exam
anxiety, the principal component analysis is carried out. Thereafter, the conceptual model is validated and tested
using confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression analysis.
Findings – The hypothesized model demonstrated good reliability and validity. The results showed that
students’ anxiety has an adverse impact on their self-efficacy. Findings indicate that the sample in this study
reported more anxiety owing to online examinations in comparison to coronavirus induced anxiety. Also, it
was found that the relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy was stronger at low levels of coping
strategy whereas it got considerably weakened at high levels of coping strategy.
Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to students who belong at other levels of
education. Further studies can attempt to capture the impact of COVID on student anxiety. This study was restricted to
students in the age group of 18–25. The impact of COVID can be studied in a different age group in the future.
Practical implications – This study offers important implications for educators, practitioners and
policymakers working in the education sector. It presents an interesting insight into how the sudden change
in pedagogical delivery to online mode is preventing a smooth transition for students and becoming a cause of
anxiety. It recommends higher education institutions to develop an innovative and robust approach to
promote and address mental health issues among students. It also stresses the need for ensuring that the
process of conducting online examinations are streamlined and adequate guidance is given to students.
Social implications – The study proposes the need for training students and teachers on the application
of an blended learning approach and efficient adoption of information and communication technology
resources in teaching-learning.
Originality/value – The current study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by stressing that
adaptive-behavioral and emotion-focused coping strategies are significantly helpful in tackling coronavirus
related anxiety. It also recommends the need for Higher education institutions to play an active role in
strengthening their preparedness strategies for effective management of outbreaks and pandemics.
Interactive Technology and Smart
Education
Keywords Behavior, Stress, Educational psychology, Higher education, E-learning, Vol. 18 No. 3, 2021
pp. 475-492
Assessment and Anxiety, Coronavirus © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-5659
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0158
ITSE 1. Introduction
18,3 In March 2020, the World health organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) as a pandemic and threat to human lives across the world (WHO,
2020). Coronavirus, generally pathogenic to mammals, is a family of enveloped RNA viruses,
causes mild to severe upper respiratory tract infections (Burrell et al., 2016). On June 25th, 2020,
approximately 9 million confirmed cases and half a million deaths were reported from 204
476 countries of the world (WHO, 2020). The state of lockdown was imposed across countries by
their respective governments, which halted almost all activities and the world came to a
standstill. Along with the physiological, psychological and emotional impact of COVID-19
gradually started surfacing in varied forms and degrees of despair, confusion resulting in
amplified anxiety levels (Roy et al., 2020). It is worth mentioning that isolated in quarantine,
people experienced distress such as anger, confusion, anxiety and post-traumatic stress
symptoms (Brooks et al., 2020). The resulting impact of a multitude of factors affected every
walk of life is it social, political, economic, etc. The education sector got impacted in a very big
way by the closure of academic institutions, delays in academic schedules and migration to
virtual teaching-learning platforms as Hobson’s choice. The problem of education further got
aggravated with an evaluation of students through online mode (Cao et al., 2020; Talidong and
Toquero, 2020). It left students with hardly any time for preparation and coping with new
context culminating in high anxiety levels adversely affecting their self-efficacy. Some
educational institutions engaged the services of counselors to manage anxiety among students
caused by the pandemic and changed educational texture, to no avail (Akan et al., 2010).
Against this backdrop, it is imperative to investigate how anxiety caused due to coronavirus
and resultant online examinations impacting the self-efficacy of students.
Though there were studies to gauge the psychological impact of a pandemic on the general
public, health-care providers, corona patients, old adults (Chen et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020), there
was found a paucity of studies evaluating anxiety among students caused by a coronavirus and
imposed online education. Few researchers had attempted to probe the mental- health status of
students during pandemics (Cao et al., 2020) but there was no study that assessed the impact of
coronavirus on students’ self-efficacy levels. In addition to this, the research on ways to cope up
with anxiety caused due to the current pandemic situation was also scarce. Also surprisingly, it
was noted that there were instruments to measure exam anxiety among students but online
exam anxiety. This gap in the literature built fertile ground to study the impact of coronavirus
and online exam anxiety on student’s self-efficacy and investigate the role of coping strategy as a
moderator between anxiety and self-efficacy. This paper also attempted to develop and validate
an instrument to measure online exam anxiety among students.
Drawing cues from the above, the following objectives were framed:

To ascertain the level of anxiety among higher education students due to
coronavirus and online examinations.

To explore the impact of anxiety on the self-efficacy of students.

To investigate if coping strategy acts as a moderator between anxiety and self-
efficacy.

To develop and validate a scale to measure anxiety due to online examinations.

2. Theoretical background and conceptual model

The current section deals with a review of the literature of variables in the study – anxiety,
self-efficacy and coping strategy. Following which, the hypothesized model derived from the
literature was conceptualized.
2.1 Anxiety Moderating
Anxiety was described as the “fundamental phenomenon and the central problem of role of coping
neurosis” (Freud, 1936). It was a complex emotional reaction or state that may vary in
intensity over time as a function of the intra-psychic or situational reasons that affect an
strategy
individual (Spielberger, 1966). Anxiety was also found consisting of feelings of tension, fear,
apprehensions and an increase in autonomic nervous system activity. The universal nature
of anxiety was reflected clearly in literature, arts, religion and other facets of life (May, 1950).
Theories of anxiety were categorized into psychoanalytic, physiological, existential, 477
behavioral and cognitive. The psychoanalytic theory of anxiety started with Freud (1917),
who considered anxiety as an everyday phenomenon and an explanation to neuroses.
Anxiety was considered as a signal from the ego about potential danger. The physiological
theories accounted for anxiety to be related to particular parts of the central nervous system.
Gray (1982) regarded the behavioral inhibition system as the foundation of anxiety mediated
by hypothalamic circuits. This is like a fight/flight system to an unexpected outcome
controlled by parts of the brain. The other school of thought was a phenomenological/
existential theory. The anxiety was seen as a natural state of a person present at every point.
Another category of theories of anxiety derived from Watson’s (1920) research which
explored the dimensions of learning and cognition arguing that individuals learn to avoid
unpleasant stimuli through mediating mechanism i.e. fear or anxiety. In other words, a
threat of discomfort may lead to anxiety and resulting in the new behavior. Mowrer (1953)
viewed anxiety as a form of fear when the source of fear was unknown or repressed.
As in the current study, the anxiety among students was considered from two
perspectives – anxiety caused due to Coronavirus and online exam anxiety. Therefore, the
following section presents the literature pertaining to Coronavirus based anxiety and online
exam anxiety.
2.1.1 Coronavirus anxiety. The current pandemic brought not only the risk of death but
also unbearable mental pressure to people across the world (Xiao, 2020; Duan and Zhu,
2020). Although substantial measures were taken to diagnose infection among people,
mental health-care particularly of students was relatively neglected (Xiang et al., 2020; Lee,
2020). Balaratnasingam and Janca (2006) noted that infectious disease triggered massive
disturbance to the psychological well-being of people. This was also evident in a current
study by Liu et al. (2020) wherein Covid-19 caused traumatic stress (73.4%), depression
(50.7%), anxiety (44.7%) and insomnia (36.1%.) among people. The corroborative impacts of
a pandemic on related anxiety, post-traumatic stress, contamination concerns and
suicidality (Chong et al., 2004; Wheaton et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2009) were found, however,
their impact on students’ was found absent. The aim of this study was to fill this gap by
investigating the levels of Covid-19 induced anxiety among students.
The next section deals with a literature review of online exam anxiety:
2.1.2 Online exam anxiety. The effects of anxiety were observed in educational settings
as well. Examination-related anxiety was the most prominent source of anxiety found in
students across higher education (Furr et al., 2001). Test/exam anxiety was considered as a
situation-specific form of trait-anxiety and was often related to poor academic performance
(Chapell et al., 2005), dropout rates (Amrein and Berliner, 2003), mental and physical well-
being concerns (Greenman et al., 2000). Past scholars had conceptualized exam anxiety
constructs in a diverse manner. Earlier, exam anxiety was seen as a gauge of one’s “drive.”
Students who were exam-anxious experienced anxiety resulting in irrelevant and avoidant
behaviors leading to poor academic performance (Sarason and Mandler, 1952). Not only this,
Nottelmann and Hill (1977) found out that students with high anxiety also felt distracted,
restive and had fidgety behavior in evaluative situations. Alpert and Haber (1960)
ITSE introduced the bi-directional theory of exam anxiety as Debilitating and Facilitating anxiety.
18,3 Where, facilitating anxiety motivates an individual to perform well in a test, debilitating
anxiety, in contrast, cause avoidance behavior. Facilitating anxiety demonstrated positive
task-related behaviors such as preparing for the exam in advance and increased focus
during the exam. While debilitating anxiety causes an increase in irrelevant thoughts and
behavior among students. They avoid studying and experience self-deprecatory thoughts.
478 Thus, facilitating anxiety increased student’s performance while debilitating anxiety
hindered student’s academic performance (Zeidner, 1998; Raffety et al., 1997). Liebert and
Morris (1967) stated that exam anxiety consisted of two components – worry and
emotionality. The worry component involved fear and consequence of failing tests whereas
the emotionality component was the automatic reaction students experience in test
situations. Similarly, Wine (1971)’s model of test anxiety included tenseness, social
derogation and cognitive interference. “Tenseness” was similar to Liebert and Morris’s
emotionality component. The social derogation was the student’s fear of disparagement they
felt from peers and significant others if they failed in the test. Exam anxiety could be
measured by various instruments such as Test Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1980)
and The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983). Researchers concurred
that anxiety was a complex and multidimensional construct. It was complex to summarize
due to its intricacy. Lowe’s et al. (2015) Test Anxiety Measure for College Students (TAM-C)
had attempted to measure anxiety on the basis of different dimensions such as social
concerns, cognitive interference, emotionality, task behavior and worry. However, the scale
was specifically designed for US college students and did not include anxiety for online
exams. Moreover, the current Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a sudden shift to online
education which challenged conventional teaching-learning (Sharma, 2020; Kaup et al.,
2020). The decision to conduct online examinations further added to the anxiety of the
students (Joshi et al., 2020). Therefore, it created the need to gauge anxiety specifically in an
online examination context. This called for a new instrument, which can capture the unique
attributes of anxiety arising due to the online conduct of exams.
The next section deals with a review of the literature of the second variable in the study.

2.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy, an individualistic factor, signifies the “belief in one’s capabilities to organize
and execute the course of action required to produce desired attainment” (Bandura, 1993). It
is what a person believes he/she can do with available skills and abilities, rather than the
actual skills they possess (Bong and Skaalvik, 2003). Literature suggested that high self-
efficacy created a sense of confidence and serenity when one approaches a difficult task.
While low self-efficacy led to a false perception which caused stress and depression, thereby
resulted in a myopic view of problem-solving (Pajares, 1996). When students worry, they
tend to get distracted or preoccupied with stressors such as the outcome that burdens them
(Liebert and Morris, 1967). In a study of 610 students’ self-efficacy levels, Mulkey and O’Neil
(1999) asserted that students with high self-efficacy projected strong belief in their ability to
accomplish the exam and vice versa. Additionally, high levels of self-efficacy allowed better
handling of physiological responses such as an increase in heart rate, sweating in reaction
during stressful situations such as exams (Bandura, 1993). Thus, it could be concluded that
students with high self-efficacy are less anxious about their performance and test results.
Various empirical studies have supported the relationship between self-efficacy, test
anxiety and academic achievement. Yildirim (2012) discovered a positive relationship
between high math self-efficacy and math achievement, whereas, inverse relation was found
in high exam anxiety and math achievement. In addition to this, Hsieh et al. (2012) found
that self-efficacy and test anxiety together predicted the final grades in math class. Nelson Moderating
and Knight (2010) showed that students can avoid negative outcomes of test anxiety by role of coping
thinking of their past achievements, which, in turn, built courage and self-efficacy. In their strategy
study, Abdi et al. (2012) found test anxiety and self-efficacy having a significant impact on
the overall grades of the students. Student’s anxiety levels during exams resulted in
negative outcomes, however, self-efficacy was found to be moderating this effect (Adewuyi
et al., 2012). In a longitudinal study conducted by Roick and Ringeisen (2017) it was found 479
out that self-efficacy positively impacted student’s test anxiety levels and academic
performance. Lowe et al. (2008) depicted the complex relationship between self-efficacy,
anxiety and academic performance in their holistic test anxiety model. The model suggested
that personality characteristics such as trait anxiety and self-efficacy determine the extent to
which a test is considered as an evaluative threat leading to cognitive, physiological and
behavioral anxiety symptoms.
The next section deals with the theoretical construct of a coping strategy.

2.3 Coping strategy

Coping is a basic process which depicts how an individual detects, appraise, deal and learn
from stressful situations. Decades of research focusing on the measurement of individual
differences and correlates of coping indicated that coping can guard or exacerbate the effects
of stress, despair, fear on the mental and physical health of a person. Coping strategies are,
to put it simply, a collection of possible responses to stressful situations. They are cognitive
restructuring, problem-solving, information seeking, emotional ventilation, avoidance,
distancing, acceptance, seeking social support and denial (Billings and Moos, 1981; Parker
and Endler, 1996). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) investigated the coping strategy from two
perspectives on the basis of function –problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping.
Problem-focused coping involved strategies that included acting on the environment or the
self (seeking support from others or cognitive restructuring). On the other hand, emotion-
focused coping consisted of strategies used to regulate stressful emotions (such as emotional
ventilation). Critics of this framework argued that these two dimensions were too broad and
one strategy might include both functions (eg: seeking support from others might help in
solving a problem and pacify one’s feelings). Subsequently, Roth and Cohen (1986)
conceptualized coping with respect to the “direction” of coping response to a threat/stressor.
Approach coping is a behavioral, cognitive, emotional activity directed toward a threat (eg:
seeking information, problem-solving). While avoidance was cognitive activity directed
away from a threat such as denial and withdrawal.
Most of the attention in the literature had centered on how to help students reduce
test anxiety rather than on what students were actually doing to reduce it (Hembree,
1988; Sarason and Sarason, 1990). There was evidence about students having high
exam anxiety experiencing more task-irrelevant thoughts during examination setup
(Sarason et al., 1991; Sarason, 1984; Ganzer, 1968). Kondo (1997) identified 79 basic
tactics that cohered into five coping strategies to reduce exam anxiety “positive
thinking, relaxation, preparation, resignation and concentration.” However, there was a
paucity of research on students’ anxiety due to online examination. The sudden change
in the mode of pedagogical delivery due to the coronavirus pandemic was difficult for
students worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap and investigate students’
anxiety across the globe owing to COVID-19 and online examinations and their coping
strategy.
ITSE 2.4 Conceptual model
18,3 Undertaking deep exploration of literature, a conceptual model was hypothesized depicting
precedence of relationships among study variables. This model explained the causal relation
between anxiety (AN) and self-efficacy (SE). Then, the role played by coping strategy (CS) as
a moderating variable between the two (Figure 1).
On the basis of a review of the literature and objectives of the study, the following
480 hypotheses were framed:

H1. There was a significant negative relationship between Anxiety and Self-efficacy.
H2. Coping Strategy (CS) positively moderated the relationship between anxiety (AN)
and self-efficacy (SE) such that a negative relationship between anxiety (AN) and
self-efficacy (SE) would be stronger (vs weaker) at low (vs High) level of CS.

3. Methodology
The current research was conducted in two phases.
Phase 1: Construction of online exam anxiety scale (OEAS).

3.1 Method, participants and procedure

In the first phase (N = 162), the construct of online exam anxiety was conceptualized and
OEAS was developed by examining the relevant literature (Spielberger and Vagg, 1984;
Lowe, 2016; Kaup et al., 2020), taking note of aspects representing online exam-related
anxiety. Churning of existing literature indicated the absence of any standardized
instrument to measure anxiety caused due to online mode of examinations. Therefore, by
meticulously adopting the steps of scale development and validation as recommended by
Boateng et al. (2018), the scale to measure online exam anxiety (OEAS) was attempted. At
Step 1 Item Generation, by undertaking a systematic review of literature, the underlying
dimensions and corresponding items of the construct were identified. Step 2 Content validity
was assessed by getting the items examined and refined after discussion with experts from
industry and academia. At Step 3 Pre-testing was carried out by conducting cognitive
interviews (n = 24) with undergraduate students of the University of Delhi. Thereafter, the
final pool comprising 12-items representing the various aspects of online exam anxiety was
finalized. Each item was carefully worded to best capture the essence of this form of anxiety.
Items were, “I am nervous about the unknown aspect of online mode of examinations”,
“I fear that I will not be able to complete my exam on time,” “I am worried that I might not be
able to successfully access the question paper” and “I am anxious about the online
proctoring.” To reflect anxiety frequency over the previous 15 days, every item was rated on
a five-point Likert scale – 0 (not at all) to 4 (Everyday). This was consistent with
the American Psychiatric Association’s guidelines for measuring psychiatric symptoms

Coping strategy
(CS)

Figure 1.
Anxiety (AN) Self-Efficacy (OEF)
Conceptual model
(American Psychiatric Association Division of Research, 2013). At Step 4 Scale Moderating
administration, this 12-item OEAS scale was administered to a sample of (N = 162) college role of coping
students belonging to different universities of India funded by the federal government, state
government and private agency. The data was collected during the month of May 2020. A
strategy
total of 200 questionnaires were distributed. Out of which, 175 responses were received and
only 162 (81% response rate) were found usable. The sample consisted of 84 men and 78
women with a mean age of 22 years (SD= 1.47). The majority of students belonged to the
University of Delhi (DU) (N = 86, 53.09%), followed by Indraprastha University (IP) (N= 34, 481
20.99%), Indian Institute of Technology and Management (IITM) (N = 27, 16.66%) with
least from Amity University (N = 15, 9.26%). Step 5 Item reduction analysis was carried out
by subjecting the scale items to Principle component analysis (PCA) using varimax rotation.
It aimed to identify the parsimonious, internally consistent and functional items. The SPSS
version 26 was used for the same. At Step 6 Factor Extraction, PCA resulted in the
emergence of a single factor with nine out of 12 items having factor loading greater than 0.40
and small factors suppressed at 0.50. With a KMO value of 0.939, well above the threshold
limit of 0.6 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001) and significant results of Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) at p < 0.05, we retained the single factor. This factor explained
65.94% of the variance. The correlation matrix confirmed the linear relationship between the
items (with at least 0.03) and communalities were well above 0.5 (Display Table 1).
Subsequently, at Step 7 Test of internal consistency was carried out to gauge the
reliability of the newly conceptualized 9-item scale. A higher score suggested a high
anxiety level. The Cronbach’s alpha statistic indicated adequate internal reliability of 0.953
(Mean = 19.20, SD = 11.25) well above the acceptable value of 0.80 (Nunnally, 1978). The
factor was named Online exam anxiety and the 9-item Online Exam Anxiety Scale (OEAS)
was confirmed. In the second phase of the study, the last steps of scale validation i.e. test of
validity were carried out by adopting confirmatory factor analysis (Appendix).
Phase 2: Validity of OEAS and hypothesis testing.
In the second phase (N = 434), measurement model assessment was carried out by using
Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) to further establish the reliability and validity of newly
conceptualized OEAS along with other study variables. Hypothesis testing was also carried
out to test the causal relationship hypothesized in the proposed conceptual model.

3.2 Research design and data collection

To achieve the study’s objectives, the cross-sectional survey research design was adopted
using a convenience sampling method. According to Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988), the

Items Factor loadings

OEA1_uncertainity about online mode 0.881

OEA2_uable to finish exam timely 0.822
OEA3_access issue 0.844
OEA4_upload failure 0.895
OEA5_technical glitches 0.897
OEA6_uncomfortable 0.818
OEA7_anxious about online proctoring 0.879
OEA8_apprehensive about fairness 0.758
OEA9_fear of underperformance 0.893 Table 1.
Factor loadings of
Note: Extraction method, principal component analysis, rotation method, Varimax with Kaiser normalization OEAS
ITSE recommended sample size is at least 400 and; for quantitative studies, the rule of thumb is 10
18,3 respondents per item (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, we targeted across the globe 600 students
belonging to the USA (Arizona State University and Texas A&M), Canada (York
University), Russia (Ural Federal University), India (DU, Amity University, IITM and IP)
and Malaysia (Universiti Tun Abdul Razak) for the second phase of our study. The profile of
the respondents is presented in Table 2. By means of survey technique, a self-completion
482 structured questionnaire was administered in two phases. As recommended by Podsakoff
et al. (2003), to alleviate the concern of common method bias, the data was collected from two
individual samples i.e. India and other countries in two waves separately. The study’s final
sample consisted of 434 students (72.33% response rate). The proportion of male
respondents was (N = 198, 45.62%) while the female was (N = 236, 54.37%).

3.3 Instruments
The survey instrument was a self-administering questionnaire, which was used to assess the
student’s Anxiety and Self-efficacy during Covid-19. It contained an introductory face sheet,
which provided basic details about the study and requested the readers to participate in the
same, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity. It comprising two sections. Section I, asked the
participants to report their age, gender, college/university. Section II required the participant to
express their opinion about corona anxiety, online exam anxiety, coping strategy and self-
efficacy. It had a total of 39 items, analyzing 5 variables which were measured by adopting
standardized scales except for online exam anxiety. The details are as follows:
Corona anxiety: Corona caused anxiety was measured by using Sherman Lee (2020)
Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS). It was mental health scanner, which measured
psychological anxiety caused due to the novel coronavirus. Sample items included “I felt
dizzy, lightheaded or faint when I read or listened to news about the coronavirus” and “I had
trouble falling or staying asleep because I was thinking about the coronavirus.” It measured
anxiety experienced in the past two weeks through 5 items on a four-point Likert scale – 0
(not at all) to 4 (Everyday). A higher score indicated a high level of anxiety experienced. The
scale reported good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.892.
Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy was assessed using the General Self-efficacy Scale developed
by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). It was a uni-dimensional, 11 item instrument, which
captured the respondents’ self-efficacy through items like, “It is easy for me to stick to my

Phase 1 Phase 2
N = 162 N = 434
Variable n (%) n (%)

Gender
Male 84 51.8 198 45.62
Female 78 48.2 236 54.37
Education
Bachelors 105 64.81 325 74.88
Masters 57 35.18 109 25.12
Nation
India 162 100 250 57.6
USA – – 107 24.65
Table 2. Russia – – 64 14.7
Sample description Malaysia – – 13 2.9
aims and accomplish my goals” and “I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary Moderating
effort.” It used a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1(Not at all) – 4 (Exactly true). The role of coping
total score was calculated by finding the sum of all items ranging between 10 and 40, with a
higher score indicating more self-efficacy. The construct Self-efficacy (SE) reported overall
strategy
Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.906.
Coping strategy: For examining the respondent’s coping strategy, 13-item Personal
Coping Strategy Scale developed by Khalid et al. (2016) was adopted. It used a four-point
Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never used) – 3 (always used). It was a unidimensional scale
483
with sample items like, “I follow strict personal protective measures (e.g. mask, hand wash,
etc.)”, “I pray/worship” and “Avoid media news about COVID-19 and related fatalities.” The
construct Coping Strategy (CS) reported overall Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.837.
Online exam anxiety: The newly conceptualized 9-item OEAS was used to assess the
online exam anxiety among respondents. Sample items included “I am nervous about the
unknown aspect of online mode of examinations” and “I fear that I will not be able to
complete my exam on time.” It measured anxiety experienced in the past two weeks through
9 items on a four-point Likert scale – 0 (not at all) to 4 (Everyday). Higher scores indicated a
high level of anxiety experienced. The scale reported good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha
equal to 0.953.

4. Data analysis and results

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 26) software. After
checking for missing values, outliers and normality, the mean and standard deviation were
calculated. As evident in Table 3, with N= 434, CA (Mean = 4.784; SD = 4.735), OEA
(Mean = 19.98; SD = 11.07), SE (Mean = 14.61; SD = 5.51) and CS (Mean = 18.83; SD = 7.59),
respectively. While assessing the level of anxiety among students, it was found that
students reported low coronavirus induced anxiety (23%) as compared to online exam
anxiety(55%). Chi-square test and T-test established the absence of any socio-demographic
differences between Phase 1 sample (N = 162) used for PCA and Phase 2 sample (N = 434)
subjected to CFA (Table 3).

4.1 Measurement model and validity assessment

Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to validate the proposed item structure of the newly
conceptualized online exam anxiety construct that emerged from PCA and, to check the
reliability and validity of the full measurement model. CFA results were consistent with
PCA findings, as a single-factor model [ x 2(9) = 95, p = 0.005] emerged with impressive
model fit [ x 2/df= 3.513; CFI = 0.935; NFI = 0.927; RMSEA = 0.143; SRMR = 0.038;

Cronbach’s
Variable n M SD alpha 1 2 3 4

1. Online exam anxiety 434 19.20 11.25 0.953 (0.836) Table 3.

2. Self-efficacy 434 14.61 5.51 0.906 0.263*** (0.727) Descriptive statistics,
3. Corona anxiety 434 4.78 4.73 0.892 0.505*** 0.388*** (0.791) reliabilities, inter-
4. Coping strategy 434 18.83 7.59 0.837 0.029 0.072
0.355*** (0.739) correlations and the
Notes: *Square root of average variance extracted (AVEs) are represented by diagonal items in the square root of
parentheses and correlation between constructs is represented by off-diagonal items Significance of average variance
correlations: ***p < 0.001 extracted
ITSE CI = 90%]for all indices. All standardized factor loading was higher than 0.5 and significant
18,3 at p < 0.05. With this, the construct reliability (a = 0.953) and validity of OEAS got
established.
Next, a full measurement model assessment was done to check the reliability and validity
(Construct, convergent and discriminant) of all studied variables (constructs). First, internal
consistency was calculated using reliability statistics, Cronbach’s a. With each construct’s a
484 being greater than 0.7 [Corona Anxiety, a = 0.892; Online exam anxiety, a = 0.953; Self-
efficacy, a = 0.906; Coping Mechanism, a = 0.837), all constructs reported good degree of
reliability and were found suitable for further analysis (Sekeran, 2003). In addition to this,
the convergent validity was further established as each construct’s respective factor
loadings ranged from 0.77 to 0.94, which were above 0.5. Finally, discriminant validity was
assessed to determine the unique distinctness of each construct. For this, average shared
variance (ASV), marginal shared variance (MSV) and average variance extracted (AVE) of
all constructs were calculated. As the AVE of all constructs was more than their ASV and
MSV, the discriminant validity was established. Further, the discriminant validity emerged
to be satisfactory at the construct level also (Table 4) as the correlation among constructs
was less than square roots of AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thereafter, the model fit
indices were examined. With, chi-square ( x 2) 640.33 with a degree of freedom (df) = 246 at
a significant p-value of less than 0.05 the overall model displayed good model fit
[ x 2/df = 2.603; CFI = 0.943; NFI = 0.911; RMSEA = 0.061; SRMR = 0.043; CI = 90%] for all
indices. Hence, on the basis of CFA results, the measurement model was found to possess a
good fit and robust for hypothesis testing. However, before proceeding with hypothesis
testing, the common method bias was scanned by using the common latent factor (CLF)
method. The Chi-Square difference test comparing constrained and unconstrained models
resulted in invariant models, at the significance level of p < 0.05. This result signified the
absence of common bias in data.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

For testing the causal relationship hypothesized in the proposed conceptual model,
hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. The results of the first step of the analysis
showed anxiety (AN) accounted for considerable variability in SE, R2 = 0.31, F(2,433) =
97.47, p < 0.005, indicating that students having high anxiety levels tend to have a
significant negative impact on self-efficacy. Hence, H1 signifying the relations between AN
and SE was accepted, as AN ( b = 0.369, p < 0.05) was significantly and negatively
predicting the SE. Also, with R2 = 0.31, showed that 31% variance in SE was because of
exogenous latent construct AN (Table 4).

4.3 Moderation analysis

A second step was conducted to test H2. Which postulated that Coping Strategy positively
moderated the relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy such that the negative
relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy would be stronger (vs weaker) at low (vs High)

Hypothesis Causal relation Estimate ( b ) R2 P*

HI AN ! SE 0.369 0.310 **** Supported

Table 4. H2 ZAN_X_ZCS ! ZSE 0.584 0.341 **** Supported
Hypothesis testing
results Notes: ****p < 0.005; DR2 = 3%
level of Coping Strategy. Results showed CS accounted for considerable variance in SE after Moderating
controlling for effects of AN, R2 change= 0.34, F (1,432) = 3.998, P <0.005. Indicating that CS as role of coping
a moderating variable significantly and positively predicted SE ( b = 0.380, p < 0.05. As
evident from Table 4, R2 increased to 34% in the presence of CS as a moderator. Next, as
strategy
recommended by Dawson (2014) interaction effect test was also carried out. It was found that
Inter ( b = 0.584, p < 0.05) was having a significant causal effect on ‘Self-efficacy. As illustrated
in Figure 2, we plotted this significant interaction at 6 SD from the mean of coping strategy
(Aiken et al., 1991). For low levels of coping strategy (i.e. 1SD) anxiety was significantly
485
negatively related to self-efficacy, whereas for high levels of coping strategy (i.e. þ1SD) anxiety
was not related to self-efficacy. Therefore, it could be concluded that the negative relationship
between anxiety and self-efficacy was stronger at low levels of coping strategy, whereas, it got
considerably weakened at high levels of coping strategy. Thus, the study’s second hypothesis,
H2 was supported.

5. Discussion
In this study, we examined the impact of anxiety caused due to COVID-19 and online exams on
students’ self-efficacy. We also explored how coping strategies adopted during the course
moderates the impact of anxiety on students’ self-efficacy. The results showed that anxiety and
self-efficacy were negatively related. This signified that an increase in anxiety leads to a
decrease in one’s self-efficacy. The result was supported by studies conducted by Nelson and
Knight (2010), Yildirim (2012), Abdi et al. (2012), Mulkey and O’Neil (1999); Hsieh et al. (2012),
Pajares, 1996 and Rizun and Strzelecki (2020). In addition to this, it was found that COVID-19
anxiety was low in contradiction to studies by Roy et al. (2020), Brooks et al. (2020), Baloran
(2020) and Evren et al. (2020). To address, COVID-19 related anxiety students are resorting to
personal protective gear, yoga, meditation, etc., in tune with studies of Khalid et al. (2016) and
Faye et al. (2015). It is worth noting that the result of this study came to respite in the present
pandemic situation. It indicated that the mental health of the students was not severely affected
by the pandemic as they were hopeful of the future. This may be indicative that a positive
future orientation helps to manage anxiety even in a pandemic situation where terra incognito
horrifies humanity at large. In other words, one of the means to help people coping with anxiety
that too in a pandemic situation is to show a brighter tomorrow. This may also be reasoned by
the perceived higher immunity of youngsters.

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
coping strategy on
the relationship
between anxiety and
self-efficacy
ITSE Further, findings indicated higher anxiety owing to online examinations in comparison to
18,3 coronavirus induced anxiety. Perhaps, this was because the transition in pedagogy was not
smooth for students, in addition to anxiety about the fairness of online examinations. This is
a very interesting piece of finding that pandemic which is horrifying the globe is causing
less anxiety among students as compared to anxiety caused due to immediacy of online
exam. We may say, that education institutions may ensure that online exam-related anxiety
486 is addressed with better communication, transparency, streamlining and adequate guidance
to students. Online mock tests before the actual examination may be useful. This will help in
reducing online test anxiety among students. To address the anxiety concern, the processes
need to be built around humans and technology. In other words, with good counseling and
better technology interface the anxiety may be arrested.

6. Implications of the study

This study has important theoretical, practical and social implications. The findings of the
current exploration will help educators, practitioners, policymakers to bring about positive
changes in the higher education sector.

6.1 Theoretical contribution

From a theoretical standpoint, it has added to the literature on the impact of COVID-19 in
higher education. The physical health impact of COVID is visible in society but mental
health remains neglected. This study has filled this gap and investigated the effects of
COVID-19 on students. Not only this, the current study has explored the issue of online
exam anxiety which has escaped the attention of past researchers investigating online
education. Given this, the online exam anxiety scale (OEAS) is an important contribution to
the study. To date, there were many scales available to measure test anxiety of students, but
the literature on measuring test anxiety in an online mode remained scarce. Therefore, this
study has also added to the literature and contributed an important instrument, which is
crucial in the present times. The moderating influence of coping strategy on the relationship
between anxiety and self-efficacy is also a significant contribution to the study.

6.2 Practical implications

The results of the study also have a practical and social bearing in the higher education
sector. Higher education institutions should play a dynamic role in strengthening their
management strategies concerning outbreaks and pandemics. Higher education institutions
should develop an innovative and robust approach to promote and address mental health
issues among students. Most importantly, as online education is still at a nascent stage and
embracing this paradigm shift in pedagogical delivery, educational institutions should train
students and teachers on the application of the online-blended learning approach. The
mental health of college students is significantly impacted due to a sudden shift in the mode
of education and they require attention, help and support from their families, colleges and
society at large. Introduction of any new online learning tool or any policy change related to
e-learning should be done with keeping the mental state of students in mind. It is
recommended that government and educational institutions should collaborate to resolve
this issue to provide high-quality crisis-oriented psychological services to students.

7. Covid-19 opportunities and challenges

COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the entire educational system, but in hindsight, has
opened up opportunities for universities to revamp their content delivery and transfer
attention to emerging cloud-based technologies. Owing to these structural changes, the Moderating
higher education institutions were forced to shift their entire instructional apparatus from role of coping
offline mode to online. Although it allowed students to learn at their convenience from home,
it impeded the delivery of an interactive, face-to-face, personalized experience-based
strategy
learning in lively campus life. Adaptation to online assessment at such short notice was a
challenge interrogating rigor and standards. The demanders of work from home were
stressed with blurring boundaries of work and home. In case the change in the system is not
given its cooling period for adaptation, the pandemic will leave its scars for a very long 487
period. Therefore, Higher education institutions should seize this opportunity to strengthen
their teaching practices, promote blended learning, provide accessible mental health-related
services and make the course curriculum responsive to the changing needs of current times.
The focus should be on enhancing the online-driven competencies of the teachers so that
they can effectively contribute to the digital literacy mission.

8. Limitations of the study

The study was limited to students belonging to the age group of 18–25 in higher education
institutions. There may be the inclusion of students from other geographies to make this
study robust. Also, the impact of COVID could be studied on a higher age group in the
future.
The other variables such as culture and learning approaches can also be incorporated in
future studies. The online proctoring and its relation to exam anxiety can also be further
researched. The results of the current cross-sectional exploration can be supplemented by
undertaking a longitudinal study in the future.

References
Abdi, H.M., Bageri, S., Shoghi, S., Goodarzi, S. and Hosseinzadeh, A. (2012), “The role of metacognitive
and self-efficacy beliefs in students’ test anxiety and academic achievement”, Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 418-422.
Adewuyi, T.D.O., Taiwo, O.K. and Olley, B.O. (2012), “Influence of examination anxiety and
self-efficacy on academic performance among secondary school students”, Ife PsychologIA,
Vol. 420 No. 2.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage.
Akan, H., Gurol, Y., Izbirak, G., Ozdatlı, S., Yilmaz, G., Vitrinel, A. and Hayran, O. (2010), “Knowledge
and attitudes of university students toward pandemic influenza: a cross-sectional study from
Turkey”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 413.
Alpert, R. and Haber, R.N. (1960), “Anxiety in academic achievement situations”, The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, p. 207.
American Psychiatric Association Division of Research (2013), “Highlights of changes from DSM-IV to
DSM-5: somatic symptom and related disorders”, Focus, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 525-527.
Amrein, A.L. and Berliner, D.C. (2003), “The testing divide: new research on the intended and
unintended impact of high-stakes testing”, Peer Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 31-32.
Balaratnasingam, S. and Janca, A. (2006), “Mass hysteria revisited”, Current Opinion in Psychiatry,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 171-174.
Baloran, E.T. (2020), “Knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and coping strategies of students during
COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Loss and Trauma, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1-8.
Bandura, A. (1993), “Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning”, Educational
Psychologist, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 117-148, doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
ITSE Bartlett, M.S. (1954), “A note on the multiplying factors for various x 2 approximations”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 296-298.
18,3
Billings, A.G. and Moos, R.H. (1981), “The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating
the stress of life events”, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 139-157.
Boateng, G.O., Neilands, T.B., Frongillo, E.A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R. and Young, S.L. (2018), “Best
practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a
488 primer”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 6, p. 149, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
Bong, M. and Skaalvik, E.M. (2003), “Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they
really?”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Brooks, S.K., Webster, R.K., Smith, L.E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N. and Rubin, G.J.
(2020), “The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the
evidence”, The Lancet, Vol. 395 No. 10227.
Burrell, C.J., Howard, C.R. and Murphy, F.A. (2016), Fenner and White’s Medical Virology, Academic
Press.
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J. and Zheng, J. (2020), “The psychological impact of
the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 287, p. 112934.
Chapell, M.S., Blanding, Z.B., Silverstein, M.E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A. and McCann, N.
(2005), “Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students”,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, p. 268.
Chen, Q., Liang, M., Li, Y., Guo, J., Fei, D., Wang, L., He, L., Sheng, C., Cai, Y., Li, X. and Wang, J. (2020),
“Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak”, The Lancet
Psychiatry, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 15-16.
Chong, M.Y., Wang, W.C., Hsieh, W.C., Lee, C.Y., Chiu, N.M., Yeh, W.C., Huang, T.L., Wen, J.K. and
Chen, C.L. (2004), “Psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on health workers
in a tertiary hospital”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 185 No. 2, pp. 127-133.
Dawson, J.F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Duan, L. and Zhu, G. (2020), “Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19
epidemic”, The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 300-302.
Evren, C., Evren, B., Dalbudak, E., Topcu, M. and Kutlu, N. (2020), “Measuring anxiety related to
COVID-19: a Turkish validation study of the coronavirus anxiety scale”, Death Studies, pp. 1-7,
doi: 10.1080/07481187.2020.1774969.
Faye, O., Boëlle, P.Y., Heleze, E., Faye, O., Loucoubar, C., Magassouba, N.F., Soropogui, B., Keita, S.,
Gakou, T., Koivogui, L. and Sall, A.A. (2015), “Chains of transmission and control of Ebola virus
disease in Conakry, Guinea, in 2014: an observational study”, The Lancet Infectious Diseases,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 320-326.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388, doi: 10.2307/3150980.
Freud, S. (1917), Delusion and Dream, Moffat, Yard.
Freud, S. (1936), “Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety”, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-28.
Furr, S.R., Westefeld, J.S., McConnell, G.N. and Jenkins, J.M. (2001), “Suicide and depression among college
students: a decade later”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 97.
Ganzer, V.J. (1968), “Effects of audience presence and test anxiety on learning and retention in a serial
learning situation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 194.
Gray, J.A. (1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal
System, Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Greenman, J., Lowe, G., Urquhart, J. and Lowe, G. (2000), “Academic stress and secretory immunoglobulin Moderating
A”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 721-722.
role of coping
Guadagnoli, E. and Velicer, W.F. (1988), “Relation of sample size to the stability of component
patterns”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 2, p. 265, doi: 10.1037%2F0033-2909.103.2.265.
strategy
Hembree, R. (1988), “Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety”, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 47-77.
Hsieh, P.H., Sullivan, J.R., Sass, D.A. and Guerra, N.S. (2012), “Undergraduate engineering students’ 489
beliefs, coping strategies, and academic performance: an evaluation of theoretical models”, The
Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 196-218.
Joshi, A., Vinay, M. and Bhaskar, P. (2020), “Impact of coronavirus pandemic on the Indian education
sector: perspectives of teachers on online teaching and assessments”, Interactive Technology and
Smart Education, doi: 10.1108/ITSE-06-2020-0087.
Kaup, S., Jain, R., Shivalli, S., Pandey, S. and Kaup, S. (2020), “Sustaining academics during COVID-19
pandemic: the role of online teaching-learning”, Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 68 No. 6,
p. 1220.
Khalid, I., Khalid, T.J., Qabajah, M.R., Barnard, A.G. and Qushmaq, I.A. (2016), “Healthcare workers
emotions, perceived stressors and coping strategies during a MERS-CoV outbreak”, Clinical
Medicine and Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-14.
Kondo, D.S. (1997), “Strategies for coping with test anxiety”, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 203-215.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer publishing company.
Lee, S.A. (2020), “Coronavirus anxiety scale: a brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related
anxiety”, Death Studies, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 393-401.
Liebert, R.M. and Morris, L.W. (1967), “Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: a
distinction and some initial data”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 975-978.
Liu, N., Zhang, F., Wei, C., Jia, Y., Shang, Z., Sun, L., Wu, L., Sun, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, Y. and Liu, W.
(2020), “Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit
areas: gender differences matter”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 287, p. 112921.
Lowe, R., Menzies, R., Packman, A., O’Brian, S. and Onslow, M. (2015), “Observer perspective
imagery with stuttering”, International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 481-488.
Lowe, P.A., Lee, S.W., Witteborg, K.M., Prichard, K.W., Luhr, M.E., Cullinan, C.M., Mildren, B.A.,
Raad, J.M., Cornelius, R.A. and Janik, M. (2008), “The test anxiety inventory for children and
adolescents (TAICA) examination of the psychometric properties of a new multidimensional
measure of test anxiety among elementary and secondary school students”, Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 215-230.
May, R. (1950), The Meaning of Anxiety, New York, NY.
Mowrer, O. (1953), Psychotherapy: theory and Research, Ronald Press Company, New York, NY,
doi: 10.1037/10572-000.
Mulkey, J.R. and O’Neil, H.F. Jr, (1999), “The effects of test item format on self-efficacy and worry
during a high-stakes computer-based certification examination”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 495-509.
Nelson, D.W. and Knight, A.E. (2010), “The power of positive recollections: reducing test anxiety and
enhancing college student efficacy and performance”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 732-745.
Nottelmann, E.D. and Hill, K.T. (1977), “Test anxiety and off-task behavior in evaluative situations”,
Child Development, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 225-231.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed, McGraw-Hill.
ITSE Pajares, F. (1996), “Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 543-578.
18,3
Parker, J.D. and Endler, N.S. (1996), “Coping and defense: a historical overview”, in Zeidner, M. and
Endler, N. (Eds), Handbook of Coping: Theory, Research, Applications, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY, pp. 3-13.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
490 Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Raffety, B.D., Smith, R.E. and Ptacek, J.T. (1997), “Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational
anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: a process analysis”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, p. 892.
Rizun, M. and Strzelecki, A. (2020), “A. Students’ acceptance of the COVID-19 impact on shifting higher
education to distance learning in Poland”, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 18, p. 6468.
Roick, J. and Ringeisen, T. (2017), “Self-efficacy, test anxiety, and academic success: a longitudinal
validation”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 83, pp. 84-93.
Roth, S. and Cohen, L.J. (1986), “Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 41 No. 7, p. 813.
Roy, D., Tripathy, S., Kar, S.K., Sharma, N., Verma, S.K. and Kaushal, V. (2020), “Study of knowledge,
attitude, anxiety and perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19
pandemic”, Asian Journal of Psychiatry, pp. 102083-102087.
Sarason, I.G. (1984), “Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: reactions to tests”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, p. 929.
Sarason, S.B. and Mandler, G. (1952), “Some correlates of test anxiety”, The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 4, p. 810.
Sarason, I.G. and Sarason, B.R. (1990), “Test anxiety”, in Handbook of Social and Evaluation Anxiety,
Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 475-495.
Sarason, B.R., Pierce, G.R., Shearin, E.N., Sarason, I.G., Waltz, J.A. and Poppe, L. (1991), “Perceived
social support and working models of self and actual others”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 273-287.
Schwarzer, R. and Jerusalem, M. (1995), “Generalized self-efficacy scale”, measures in health
psychology: a user’s portfolio”, Causal and Control Beliefs, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-37.
Sekeran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Sharma, A.K. (2020), “COVID-19: creating a paradigm shift in India’s education system”, Economic
Times Blog, available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/covid-19-
creating-a-paradigm-shift-in-india’s-education-system/
Spielberger, C.D. (1966), “Theory and research on anxiety”, in Spielberger, En CD (Ed.), Anxiety and
Behaviour, pp. 3-20.
Spielberger, C.D. (1983), “State-trait anxiety inventory for adults”, doi: 10.1037/t06496-000.
Spielberger, C.D. and Vagg, P.R. (1984), “Psychometric properties of the STAI: a reply to Ramanaiah,
Franzen, and Schill”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vo. 48 No. 1, pp. 95-97.
Spielberger, C.D., Vagg, P.R., Barker, L.R., Donham, G.W. and Westberry, L.G. (1980), “The factor
structure of the state-trait anxiety inventory”, in Sarason, I.G. and Spielberger, C.D. (Eds), Stress
and Anxiety, Vol. 7, Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA.
Talidong, K.J.B. and Toquero, C.M.D. (2020), “Philippine teachers’ practices to deal with anxiety amid
COVID-19”, Journal of Loss and Trauma, Vol. 25 Nos 6/7, pp. 1-7.
Wheaton, M.G., Abramowitz, J.S., Berman, N.C., Fabricant, L.E. and Olatunji, B.O. (2012), Moderating
“Psychological predictors of anxiety in response to the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic”, Cognitive
Therapy and Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 210-218. role of coping
Wine, J. (1971), “Test anxiety and direction of attention”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 76 No. 2, p. 92. strategy
World Health Organization (2020), “‘Solidarity’ clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments”, World Health
Organization (WHO). Situation reports, WHO, Geneva, available at: www.who.int/emergencies/
diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-
clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments (accessed 5 June 2020). 491
Wu, P., Fang, Y., Guan, Z., Fan, B., Kong, J., Yao, Z., Liu, X., Fuller, C.J., Susser, E., Lu, J. and Hoven, C.W.
(2009), “The psychological impact of the SARS epidemic on hospital employees in China: exposure,
risk perception, and altruistic acceptance of risk”, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 54 No. 5,
pp. 302-311.
Xiang, Y.T., Yang, Y., Li, W., Zhang, L., Zhang, Q., Cheung, T. and Ng, C.H. (2020), “Timely mental
health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed”, The Lancet Psychiatry,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 228-229.
Xiao, C. (2020), “A novel approach of consultation on 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19)-related
psychological and mental problems: structured letter therapy”, Psychiatry Investigation, Vol. 17
No. 2, p. 175.
Yang, Y., Li, W., Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., Cheung, T. and Xiang, Y.T. (2020), “Mental health services for
older adults in China during the COVID-19 outbreak”, The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 19.
Yıldırım, S. (2012), “Teacher support, motivation, learning strategy use, and achievement: a multilevel
mediation model”, The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 150-172.
Zeidner, M. (1998), Test Anxiety: The State of the Art, Plenum, New York, NY.

Further reading
Bandura, A., Freeman, W.H. and Lightsey, R. (1999), “Self-efficacy: the exercise of control”.
Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric Theory 3E, Tata McGraw-hill education.
Parkes, K.R. (1986), “Coping in stressful episodes: the role of individual differences, environmental
factors, and situational characteristics”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51
No. 6, p. 1277.
Spielberger, C.D., Anton, W.D. and Bedell, J. (2015), “The nature and treatment of test anxiety”,
Emotions and Anxiety: New Concepts, Methods, and Applications, pp. 317-344.
Watson, J.B. (2017), Behaviorism, Routledge.
Zeidner, M. (2007), “Test anxiety in educational contexts: concepts, findings, and future directions”,
Emotion in Education, Academic Press, pp. 165-184.
ITSE Appendix. Online Exam Anxiety Scale (OEAS)
18,3 How often have you experienced the following thoughts over the last 2 weeks regarding online examination?

Online Exam Anxiety scale: Items Not Rare, Several More Nearly
at all Less than days than 7 every
a day days day
492 0 1 2 3 4

1. I am nervous about the

unknown aspect of online mode of
examinations.

2. I fear that I will not be able to

complete my exam in time.

3. I am worried that I might not

be able to successfully access the
question paper.

4. I am afraid I might not be able

to timely upload/ submit my answer
script.

5. I am fearful about technical

glitches like weak internet
connection/ speed.
6. I feel uncomfortable about
giving exams in online mode.
7. I am anxious about the online
proctoring.
8. I am apprehensive about the
fairness of online mode of
examinations.

9. I dread that I might not

perform well because of online
exam pressure.

The total score is calculated by summation of all 9 items. It ranges from 0 to 36.

Score of 0-9: Low levels of online exam anxiety

Score of 10- 27: Moderate levels of online exam anxiety

Score of 28 and more: High levels of online exam anxiety.

Corresponding author
Simple Arora can be contacted at: arora.simple@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com