Asia Pacific Journal of Education

ISSN: 0218-8791 (Print) 1742-6855 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

An investigation of the reasons for test anxiety,

time spent studying, and achievement among
adolescents in Taiwan

Tzu-Yang Chao & Yao-Ting Sung

To cite this article: Tzu-Yang Chao & Yao-Ting Sung (2019): An investigation of the reasons for
test anxiety, time spent studying, and achievement among adolescents in Taiwan, Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2019.1671804

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1671804

Published online: 03 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cape20
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1671804

An investigation of the reasons for test anxiety, time spent

studying, and achievement among adolescents in Taiwan
a,b
Tzu-Yang Chao and Yao-Ting Sungb,c
a
Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan;
b
Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan;
c
Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Students of middling achievement who achieve intermediate results on Received 2 August 2018
the Basic Competence Test, a national high-stakes entrance examination Accepted 23 August 2019
in Taiwan, experience the highest test anxiety. The present study explored KEYWORDS
why such students experienced greater test anxiety and the source of that Adolescents; Examination
anxiety. A questionnaire survey was administered to 5,220 Taiwanese Stress Scale; test anxiety;
Grade 9 students in order to collect data on test anxiety, reasons for test time spent studying;
anxiety, time spent on study, and frequency of cram school attendance. uncertainty
Data regarding students’ achievement on the Basic Competence Test
were also collected. The research findings were as follows: First, students
of middling achievement had higher test anxiety than their peers. Second,
the reasons for their test anxiety also varied according to levels of aca-
demic performance – students with middling achievement experienced
anxiety about the possibility of not being admitted to a state school
(which are more prestigious than private schools in Taiwan). Third, stu-
dents of middling achievement spent approximately the same amount of
time studying as top students but more time studying at cram schools.
The findings indicate that students of middle achievement might experi-
ence greater test anxiety because they spend more time studying but still
run the risk of not being admitted to a state school.

Introduction
Test anxiety and examination stress remain prevalent among adolescents (Beidel, Turner, & Taylor-
Ferreira, 1999). More recently, Putwain and Daly (2014) demonstrated that 15%–40% of secondary
school students in the UK reported having high test anxiety. Thomas, Cassady, and Finch (2018) used
latent class analysis to reveal that 25% of US undergraduate students fell into the high test anxiety
class. Researchers are concerned about test anxiety because it may have an adverse impact on
student performance. Seipp’s (1991) meta-analysis reported a negative correlation between test
anxiety and achievement (r = −.23). On the basis of this linear negative correlation between test
anxiety and performance in adolescents, researchers might easily infer that students with the worst
grades would have the most severe test anxiety. However, do students with the lowest levels of
achievement really report the highest test anxiety? Sung, Chao, and Tseng (2016) indicated that
among Taiwanese students, the relationship between levels of test anxiety and achievement was
represented by an inverted-U shape, that is, students of middle achievement experienced the
highest level of test anxiety. Sung et al. (2016) mentioned that students with medium levels of

CONTACT Tzu-Yang Chao ziyang.ccu@gmail.com Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing, National
Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Da’an Dist., Taipei 106, Taiwan
© 2019 National Institute of Education, Singapore
2 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

achievement experienced greater levels of test anxiety because they faced greater uncertainty about
qualifying for entry into state schools, which are more prestigious than private high schools in
Taiwan. The present study therefore attempted to corroborate the inverted-U-shaped relationship. In
addition, this study uses a survey to investigate the reasons for this inverted-U phenomenon; the
impact on test anxiety from factors, such as time spent studying and days spent in cram school (i.e.,
non-formal schools where students are trained to pass high-stakes tests) are also examined.

Literature review
Test anxiety and examination stress
Test anxiety is an anxious response evoked by test situations. However, its definition has changed
over time. When first coined, test anxiety was identified with various sorts of pretest physical arousal,
such as elevated heart rate. Subsequently, it was divided into two components: “emotionality”
(physiological arousal) and “worry” (negative thoughts about tests) (Spielberger, 1980). Later, test
anxiety was seen as a multidimensional phenomenon including cognitive, behavioural, physiologi-
cal, and emotional components (Wren & Benson, 2004; Zeidner, 1998) and was treated as being
synonymous with “examination stress.” Therefore, some researchers have argued that test anxiety is
difficult to distinguish from examination stress, that is, the two terms can be used interchangeably
(Schwarzer & Buchwald, 2003; Sung et al., 2016). Sung and Chao (2015) constructed an Examination
Stress Scale (ExamSS) for Taiwanese adolescents that divides examination stress into the physiolo-
gical anxiety response (PA), the cognitive–behavioural response (CB), and perceived social expecta-
tions and social comparisons (SS). The first two components represent test anxiety stress responses
when students face situational and societal examination stressors, such as an imminent regular test,
and the third represents the social atmosphere that continually reminds students to get higher
grades (Sung & Chao, 2015). In this study, we used the ExamSS to measure test anxiety among
Taiwanese junior high school students.

Test anxiety and performance

Studies of the relationship between test anxiety and performance have mostly adopted
a correlational approach: for example, researchers have calculated correlation coefficients between
test anxiety and performance (Chapell et al., 2005; McCarthy & Goffin, 2005; Musch & Broeder, 1999).
In this approach, two perspectives could explain the causal relationship between test anxiety and
performance: the micro perspective and the macro perspective.

Micro-level perspective
The micro-level focuses on the short term, and test anxiety and performance are seen as cause and
effect, respectively. Three theories explain this causal relationship: the cognitive interference model,
the motivational enhancement model, and the Yerkes–Dodson law. In the cognitive interference
model, test anxiety interferes with students’ cognitive abilities during exams, resulting in reduced
performance. In past research on test anxiety, a significant correlation between test anxiety and low
academic achievement has been generally observed (Chapell et al., 2005; Hembree, 1988; McCarthy
& Goffin, 2005; Musch & Broeder, 1999; Seipp, 1991; Zeidner, 1998). Further empirical studies have
also revealed that students worry that their scores will fall short of expectations, and this worry may
lead to impaired working memory and thus reduced performance (Beilock, 2008; Beilock & Carr,
2005; Korhonen, Nyroos, Jonsson, & Eklöf, 2018).
The motivational enhancement model shows how test anxiety motivates students to study for or
focus more effectively on tests. While many studies have revealed a negative relationship between
test anxiety and performance, some have also concluded that a positive correlation exists: For
example, Cassady and Johnson (2002) found a weak and positive correlation between emotional
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 3

anxiety and academic performance. Chapell et al. (2005) concluded that undergraduate girls’ test
anxiety and their grade point average were both significantly higher than those of boys. Struthers,
Perry, and Menec (2000) argued that students with test anxiety used more problem-focused coping
strategies, which led to higher scores.
The Yerkes–Dodson law describes a curvilinear relationship between anxiety and performance,
that is, slight anxiety could enhance motivation, encouraging students to expend more effort on
tasks; however, extreme anxiety could suppress performance. Srivastava and Krishna (1991) demon-
strated this phenomenon in industry: People who experienced moderate levels of stress performed
most efficiently.

Macro-level perspective
The macro-level, by contrast, focuses on the long term (e. g., the 3 years from Grades 7 to 9), and
performance is seen as the cause, while test anxiety is seen as the effect (Sung et al., 2016). In the
short term, the relationship between test anxiety and performance may relate to each stage of the
test experience, including preparation, the actual test, and the post-exam period (Stöber, 2004);
therefore, cognitive interference, motivation enhancement, and the effects of the Yerkes–Dodson
law may all come into play (Muse, Harris, & Feild, 2003). However, in the long term, students face
long-term high-stakes testing, and test anxiety can be seen as long-term stress. Carey, Hill, Devine,
and Szücs (2015) indicated that longitudinal studies have shown that students’ poor performance
could lead to test anxiety. Long-term stress among students could be due to their achievement
levels, which will determine their future careers. For example, Sung et al. (2016) reported that ninth
graders of middle achievement experienced the highest levels of test anxiety, with anxiety level
gradually tapering off towards the two extremes of the achievement spectrum, and this phenom-
enon may be explained by students of middle achievement facing greater uncertainty about
examination results. Uncertainty can be a major source of stress and is linked to anxiety (Gati
et al., 2011). According to the entropy model of uncertainty (EMU) put forward by Hirsh, Mar, and
Peterson (2012), uncertainty can be reflected in an individual’s perceptions and action: When a given
situation has more perceptual and action possibilities, there is greater uncertainty anxiety. As
described above, from a macro perspective which looks at students’ achievements as a cause and
their test anxiety as an effect, one may wonder why middling students feel and experience more test
anxiety and uncertainty.

Uncertainty faced by medium-achieving students

Uncertainty about future schooling/enrolment
Sung and Chao (2015) believed that test anxiety is linked to the overall social atmosphere. Asian
countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have so called elite secondary schools because schools
are unofficially ranked according to their students’ results on high school and university entrance
examinations (Sung, Huang, Tseng, & Chang, 2014). Thus, the general public form an opinion of
a school on the basis of its students’ success rates, which are inferred from school performance
rankings. In this social environment, students are repeatedly reminded that achieving a high score on
a high-stakes test, such as an entrance examination, will earn them a place in an elite school, which in
turn will bring higher social status in the future (Kim & Lee, 2010; Lee & Larson, 2000). In addition,
there is a general preference in Taiwan for state schools over most private schools (Sung et al., 2016,
2014); thus, such examinations are of vital importance to test takers and can also generate test
anxiety and worry (Hutchings, 2015; Putwain, 2008). The research of Sung et al. (2016) does not
explain why middling students have higher levels of test anxiety; however, the fact that students of
varied academic achievement display different patterns of test anxiety suggests that different causes
of test anxiety might be in effect at different levels of academic achievement. Thus, the present study
investigated the different reasons for test anxiety and determined whether test anxiety among
medium-achieving students is mainly due to worry about not qualifying for entry into state schools.
4 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

No return on investment
The social environment created by the aforementioned examination culture means that in countries
where examinations are held in great esteem, students take exam results seriously and spend more
time preparing for them. Cram school attendance is widespread throughout Japan, Hong Kong,
South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines (Bray, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1996;
Kim & Lee, 2010). Furthermore, studies have discovered that in 1998, the proportion of the average
South Korean family income spent on cram schooling (2.9%) was not far below that spent on formal
education (3.4%) (Kim, 2005). In addition, schools hold frequent mock exams to hone students’
examination skills (Lee & Larson, 2000). Such a social environment can affect students’ natural
rhythms of work and rest. For example, Lee and Larson (2000) revealed that South Korean students
spend more time studying and doing homework than American students, and this greatly reduces
the amount of free time spent on leisure activities. In addition, they found that spending more time
on study and homework correlates with higher rates of depression reported by students (between
.35 and .54). Thus, Korean students experience more negative emotions than American students.
Researchers also refer to this phenomenon of cram schooling and over studying as “examination
hell” (Lee, 2003; Lee & Larson, 2000).
In summary, the social environment of countries with an examination culture can increase the
amount of time students spend studying and in cram school; furthermore, students who spend more
time engaging in these activities may experience more negative emotions. Thus, one reason why
medium-achieving students suffer greater levels of test anxiety may be that these students spend
more time studying and at cram schools; moreover, even if they do so, their grades may remain
middling. This situation may create uncertainty because students feel that they earn no “return” on
their “investment.” Therefore, the time spend on study and private tuition and its relationship with
their performance is worth investigating. The present study examined whether medium-achieving
students spend more time in these pursuits than high- or low-performing students.

Research objectives
The main objective of the present study is to answer two research questions: Does the test anxiety
experienced by medium-achieving students originate in their failure to enter a state school, and do
medium-achieving students spend the most time in study and private tuition? These two research
questions are based on the findings of previous research; namely, that medium-achieving students
experience greater levels of test anxiety than other students (Sung et al., 2016). However, the non-linear
inverted-U relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement is very rare observed in previous
research. Thus, this study first attempted to corroborate the inverted-U phenomenon and then investi-
gated medium-achieving students’ perception of uncertainty about obtaining a grade that will permit
entry into a state school and thereby encourage them to spend more time studying than others.

Method
Participants
Initial data were collected in 2012 from 5,292 students. Stratified random sampling was used to
select junior high schools from Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern Taiwan at a ratio of 3:2:2:1.
A total of 120 schools participated in the study, with students selected at random – 40, 80, or 120
students from each school, according to the size of the student body.
The post data filtering phase filtered out incomplete student data, defined as follows:

(1) incomplete basic information such as sex or national ID card number (which enables access to
the participant’s Basic Competence Test (BCTEST) scores),
(2) failure to answer all ExamSS questions,
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 5

(3) missing information on time spent studying and the number of days attending cram school,
(4) student not going on to sit the BCTEST.

After data filtering, we retained the data of 5,220 students (98.6% of the original sample), 2,448
(46.90%) boys and 2,772 (53.10%) girls. Sampling covered junior high schools in every region of
Taiwan and students of all levels of academic performance in Taiwan; therefore, the sample was
representative.

Research materials
Examination stress scale (ExamSS)
This study used the ExamSS developed by Sung and Chao (2015), which covers three dimensions
that reflect the levels of test anxiety and stress experienced by high school students: physiological
anxiety responses (PA, 10 items), cognitive and behavioural responses (CB, 8 items), and perceived
social expectations and social comparisons (SS, 9 items). PA are physical responses arising from
examinations, such as “I have a stomach ache before or during a test.” CB are thoughts and
behaviours triggered by test anxiety, such as “I force myself to study hard in preparation for an
exam.” SS are feelings of anxiety that students have because of their parents’ and teachers’
expectations or comparison with their peers, such as “Whenever I think of how my teacher expects
me to perform on the exam, I feel overwhelmed.” Responses to the ExamSS use a 5-point Likert scale,
with scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 denoting “totally disagree,” “slightly disagree,” “partially agree,”
“agree,” and “totally agree,” respectively. The Cronbach’s α value for the three subscales were .91 for
PA, .86 for CB, and .88 for SS; the Cronbach’s α value for the whole scale was .93. These reliability
coefficients are similar to those of Sung and Chao (2015), where the Cronbach’s α values were .89,
.85, .88, and .92 for PA, CB, SS, and the whole scale, respectively. In addition, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) of the three-dimensional model was conducted to examine the present study’s
construct of the ExamSS, with the comparative fit index (CFI) = .87, the normed fit index
(NFI) = .87, and the root mean square error of approximation = .07. Although the CFI and NFI of
the CFA model were below the .90 threshold, the decreased chi-square relative values could be
explained by an excessive sample size, a large number of items, or a stronger correlation between
variables (Kline, 2010). Thus, according to the reliability and CFA evidence, the present study’s
ExamSS is an acceptable measurement tool.

Questionnaire on reasons for test anxiety (QRT)

The QRT comprises two parts. The first asked about students’ cram school attendance and time spent
studying. The question on cram school attendance was “During your third year of junior high school,
how many days a week did you attend cram school (or receive private tuition)?”, and participants chose
from six answers: “zero days,” “1 day,” “2 days,” “3 days,” “4 days,” and “5 days.” The question on time
spent studying was “In addition to class time, on average how much time do you spend per day on
after-class study?” The possible responses were “1 h,” “2 h,” “3 h,” “4 h,” and “5 h or more.” The question
was in two parts and asked students to provide separate answers for schooldays and non-schooldays.
The second part of the questionnaire collects data on reasons for test anxiety. Here, participants
completed the sentence “I feel stressed before an examination, and the main reasons are . . . ” with
any of the 10 listed options. These options were selected in consultation with a teacher who has
taught in a junior high school for over 20 years and an expert on school and educational psychology.
The options are listed in Table 5.

The BCTEST
The BCTEST is the most widely administered official standardized test and was developed in 1998 by
the Research Centre for Psychological and Educational Testing (RCPET) at National Taiwan Normal
University. It is one of the largest academic achievement tests in Taiwan, and its results are used as
6 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

admission criteria for junior high school students seeking to enter senior high school or vocational
school (Sung et al., 2014; Wang, Sung, Sung, Lu, & Li, 2008; Yeh, Chang, Hu, Yeh, & Lin, 2009). The test
covers six subjects: Mandarin, English, mathematics, social sciences, sciences, and writing. The first
five subjects are available exclusively in the multiple choice format, with scoring scales ranging from
1 to 80, while the writing section has 12 points, allocating a total of 412 points. Test items come from
an item bank, and all test items are rigorously reviewed by domain-subject experts and testing
experts and undergo pretest item analysis to ensure they meet standards of difficulty and discrimi-
nation, such as having discrimination coefficients over .4. As a result, the BCTEST is currently the
standardized test that best reflects the levels of academic achievement of junior high school
students in Taiwan. The present study accessed the test scores for the BCTEST held in May 2012
and used the scores as indices of students’ academic performance. The total number of items
(Cronbach’s α) for each of the five subjects were as follows: Mandarin, 48 items (.92); English, 45
items (.96); mathematics, 34 items (.92); social sciences, 63 items (.95); and sciences, 58 items (.94).

Procedure and data analysis

The present study collected data from junior high school students’ ExamSS and QRT between late
March and late April 2012, and the students sat the BCTEST in May. When the BCTEST scores were
released, the ExamSS data and BCTEST scores were merged. The ExamSS and QRT were administered
by the staff at the RCPET, all of whom are skilled at administering psychological testing. Before
administering the ExamSS and QRT, the staff first explained to students the purpose of the survey
and how to complete it. Once students had completed the questionnaire, they were told how their
data would be used and informed of data confidentiality. The BCTEST is conducted nationwide once
a year on a weekend in May, with the six subjects being assessed over a 2-day period. The BCTEST
was executed by the staff at the RCPET, who are trained in administering achievement tests, and
there was a strict standardized procedure for test time and the order of subjects tested.
For the data analysis, students’ BCTEST scores were first converted into grades on a percentile
rank (PR), and then students were divided into 10 groups according to their PR (Sung et al., 2016).
A correlation analysis was conducted on the ExamSS and BCTEST scores for boys, girls, and all
students. We used Fisher’s z transformation (Bond & Richardson, 2004) to perform a z-test for the
correlation coefficients of boys and girls. We also conducted a quadratic regression where the
independent variable was the groups divided by the PR and the dependent variable was the
ExamSS. Next, we calculated each group’s frequency of reasons for test anxiety, average number
of days attending cram school, and average amount of time spent studying.

Results
Achievement and test anxiety
Table 1 indicates that girls had significantly higher test anxiety than boys on the ExamSS total
score or three subscale scores. Furthermore, we sought to determine whether the two genders
had the same correlation between the BCTEST and ExamSS scores. A Fisher’s z transformation
conducted for the correlation coefficients revealed that the difference between the correlation
coefficients for girls and boys for the BCTEST and ExamSS was not significant (z = 1.15, p = .25),
and non-significant differences were observed between the BCTEST scores and PA (z = −0.34,
p = .73), CB (z = 1.60, p = .11), and SS (z = 1.31, p = .19). On the basis of these results, gender
does not appear to moderate the correlation between academic performance and test anxiety;
thus, we combined the data for boys and girls for all subsequent analysis. First, we analysed the
descriptive statistics for the BCTEST and ExamSS scores for each PR group (Table 2) and found
that the students of middle achievement (PR40–49, PR50–59, and PR60–69 groups) reported the
highest levels of test anxiety, while anxiety levels tapered off towards the two extremes of the
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 7

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and coefficients for correlations between the BCTEST, total ExamSS, and ExamSS subscales.
Boys
1 2 3 4 5
1. BCTEST –
2. PA .14* –
3. CB .24* .50* –
4. SS -.03 .53* .53* –
5. ExamSS .13* .83* .80* .85* –
Mean 267.36 20.79 24.14 27.19 72.13
SD 96.20 8.59 7.44 8.99 20.67
Girls
1. BCTEST –
2. PA .10* –
3. CB .24* .51* –
4. SS -.08* .50* .50* –
5. ExamSS .09* .84* .79* .83* –
Mean 266.94 23.95 25.85 29.90 79.70
SD 92.18 8.54 6.62 8.28 19.19
All students
1. BCTEST –
2. PA .11* –
3. CB .24* .52* –
4. SS -.06* .53* .52* –
5. ExamSS .11* .84* .80* .84* –
Mean 267.13 22.47 25.05 28.63 76.15
SD 94.08 8.71 7.07 8.72 20.25
BCTEST = Basic Competence Test; PA = physiological anxiety; CB = cognitive and behavioural; SS = social expectations and social
comparisons; ExamSS = Examination Stress Scale; SD = standard deviation
*p < .001.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics grouped according to learning achievement.

BCTEST PA CB SS ExamSS
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
PR1–9 80.97 6.77 19.32 8.33 19.58 7.30 26.45 9.19 65.35 21.20
PR10–19 117.26 13.38 19.64 8.80 21.22 7.17 27.70 9.40 68.56 21.76
PR20–29 163.90 13.12 21.55 8.90 23.49 7.36 29.12 8.95 74.16 21.35
PR30–39 208.09 12.25 22.71 8.79 25.13 6.72 30.38 8.50 78.23 19.70
PR40–49 248.36 11.22 22.88 8.45 26.04 6.35 30.50 8.06 79.41 18.80
PR50–59 285.35 10.11 23.71 8.64 25.76 6.70 29.57 8.44 79.05 19.62
PR60–69 318.40 8.43 23.68 8.94 26.35 6.56 29.47 8.59 79.49 19.66
PR70–79 345.48 7.49 23.69 8.93 26.50 6.63 28.68 8.77 78.87 20.29
PR80–89 370.19 6.23 23.05 8.17 26.28 6.74 27.03 8.33 76.36 18.81
PR90–99 393.91 7.46 21.77 7.89 25.77 6.71 25.37 8.43 72.90 18.72
BCTEST = Basic Competence Test; PA = physiological anxiety; CB = cognitive and behavioural; SS = perceived social expectations
and social comparisons; ExamSS = Examination Stress Scale; SD = standard deviation

PR scale (Figure 1). To examine the inverted-U shape relationship between achievement and test
anxiety, we also conducted a quadratic regression. As Table 3 displays, the quadratic term in the
regression was negative and significant (β = −.86, p < .01), which indicates that the pattern of
test anxiety in relation to achievement is an inverted-U shape.
We also calculated the correlation between the BCTEST and ExamSS scores among top-achieving
(PR50–99) students and those at the bottom of the academic scale (PR1–49). As Table 4 shows,
a positive relationship was observed between the BCTEST and ExamSS scores of students with the
lowest academic performance, r = .24. However, among the top-achieving students a slight negative
correlation was observed, r = −.10. These results are consistent with those presented by Sung et al.
(2016), indicating that the inverted-U shape relationship can be corroborated.
8 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

95.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
ExamSS score
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00

BCTEST PR gourps

Figure 1. Examination Stress Scale (ExamSS) scores of students with different levels of learning achievement. BCTEST = Basic
Competence Test; PR = percentile rank.

Table 3. Quadratic regression of PR groups on ExamSS scores.

SS DF MS F p R R square
Regression 83754.86 2 41877.43 106.26 < .01 .20 .04
Residual 2056030.74 5217 394.10
Total 2139785.59 5219
B SE β t P

Linear 7.02 .49 .92 14.19 < .01

Quadratic -.55 .04 -.86 -13.17 < .01
Constant 57.74 1.29 44.61 < .01
ExamSS = Examination Stress Scale; SS = sum of squares; DF = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square; SE = standard error

Table 4. Correlation coefficients for BCTEST scores and ExamSS.

BCTEST PA CB SS ExamSS
BCTEST −.06* −.01 −.18* −.10*
PA .16* .47* .52* .83*
CB .30* .56* .49* .77*
SS .16* .56* .60* .84*
ExamSS .24* .84* .83* .86*
Values above and below the main diagonal represent PR50–PR99 and PR1–PR49 students, respectively. PR = percentile rank;
BCTEST = Basic Competence Test; PA = physiological anxiety; CB = cognitive and behavioural; SS = perceived social
expectations and social comparisons; ExamSS = Examination Stress Scale
*p < .001

Achievement and reasons for test anxiety

In the QRT, students chose and ranked what they thought were their most likely reasons for test
anxiety. During analysis, we also examined the reasons in the order specified by the students. Table 5
illustrates the reasons (ranked by percentage) listed as the most important reasons for test anxiety by
students of various levels of academic performance. A test of independence indicated that the
reasons for test anxiety differed for students of different levels of academic performance:
χ2(90) = 30,021.62, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .15. A closer look at the top two reasons for each PR group
showed that for students with the lowest academic achievement, the most common reasons were
Table 5. Most important reasons for test anxiety among students of different levels of academic performance, by percentage.
PR1–9 PR10–19 PR20–29 PR30–39 PR40–49 PR50–59 PR60–69 PR70–79 PR80–89 PR90–99
However hard I work, my grades do not improve. 18.51 24.21 13.77 15.20 12.09 8.38 11.59 9.48 6.11 4.06
I don’t understand what the teachers teach. 21.87 19.55 14.93 11.50 7.51 7.29 5.92 3.54 2.90 1.55
I won’t be able to get into a state school. 11.67 17.67 18.16 18.88 19.32 18.40 13.80 9.37 5.29 3.20
I have to do chores and have little time for study. 0.86 1.65 1.39 1.15 0.63 0.25 0.31 0.45 0.47 0.15
I go to cram school too often and don’t have time to absorb what I learn. 1.74 2.59 2.14 4.48 3.00 3.47 4.14 4.08 4.51 3.48
I lag behind peers academically. 11.90 7.21 10.79 7.48 6.72 7.56 7.18 5.56 5.81 3.39
I can’t maintain a certain standard of academic performance. 14.85 10.27 12.74 13.48 15.01 15.33 14.56 16.71 17.65 13.72
I don’t meet my own standards. 8.00 5.82 12.76 11.36 20.31 24.30 27.42 33.87 41.89 56.19
I don’t meet my teachers’ expectations with my examination scores. 2.09 1.23 1.97 1.73 1.33 1.45 2.44 2.32 2.56 1.20
I don’t meet my parents’ expectations with my examination scores. 5.61 7.68 9.16 13.24 11.98 10.41 10.75 11.16 9.73 7.34
Other 2.91 2.12 2.18 1.51 2.10 3.15 1.87 3.47 3.08 5.72
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
9
10 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

“However hard I work, my grades do not improve” and “I don’t understand what the teachers teach.”
For the PR1–9 group, these were the top two reasons for 18.51% and 21.87% of the students. For
those in the PR10–19 group, they were the top reasons for 24.21% and 19.55% of the students. In
groups with higher academic achievement, reasons such as “Not being able to get into a state
school” and “Not meeting my own standards” start to became more important. For example, in the
PR40–49 group, these two reasons were listed as the top two reasons for test anxiety by 19.32% and
20.31% of the participants. As the level of academic achievement increased, the reason “Not being
able to maintain a certain performance standard” started taking precedence, and the percentage of
students listing the top reasons as “Not meeting my own standards” also increased. For example, in
the PR70–79 group, these two reasons were ranked top by 16.71% and 33.87% of the students;
however, in the PR90–99 group, the percentage of students selecting “Not meeting my own
standards” as the top reason increased to 56.19%.

Number of days in cram school, and time spent studying

We calculated the average number of days spent in cram school and the amount of time spent
studying for each of the 10 PR groups and discovered an inverted-U shaped relationship between
the average number of days students attended cram school per week and the level of academic
performance (Figure 2). For example, the PR1–9 group attended cram school 0.68 days a week; the
PR50–59 group, 2.94 days; and the PR90–99 group, 2.21 days. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
Scheffé’s post-hoc tests (Table 6) revealed that the number of days students in the PR50–79 group
went to cram school was significantly higher than that students in the below PR39 (p < .01) and
PR90–99 groups (p < .01).
Time spent studying on schooldays gradually increased with academic achievement, up to the
mid-level (Figure 3), from 1.51 h per day for the PR1–9 group to 2.84 h per day for the PR50–59 group.
However, a slight difference in average daily study times was observed between middling students
and the highest-achieving students. Table 6 also revealed that the study time of the PR50–59 group
was significantly higher than that of students below PR39 (ps < .01) but not significantly different
from that of students above PR60 (ps > .10).
By contrast, a marked increase was observed in the reported time spent studying at weekends
from all students, including the lowest- to the highest-performing students. From Table 6, the PR1–9
group studied an average of 1.45 h at weekends; PR50–59 group, 3.22 h; and PR90–99 group, 3.91 h.

3.50

3.00
Days per week

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

BCTSET PR groupings

Figure 2. Average number of days in cram school per week by levels of learning achievement. BCTEST = Basic Competence Test;
PR = percentile rank.
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 11

Table 6. ANOVA and Scheffé Post-Hoc tests of days in Cram School and time spent studying.
Source SS DF MS F p Scheffé’s post-hoc
Days in cram school PR1–9, PR10–19 < PR20–29~PR90–99
PR group 1793.77 9 199.31 52.38 < .01 PR20–29 < PR30–39~PR80–89
Within 19824.29 5210 3.81 PR30–39 < PR50–59 ~ PR70–79
PR50–59~PR70–79 > PR90–99
Hr studying (schooldays) PR1–9, PR10–19 < PR20–29~PR90–99
PR group 1232.13 9 136.90 94.97 < .01 PR20–29 < PR30–39~PR90–99
Within 7510.11 5210 1.44 PR30–39 < PR50–59~PR90–99
PR40–49 < PR60–69~PR90–99
Hr studying (weekend) PR1–9, PR10–19 < PR20–29~PR90–99
PR group 2857.85 9 317.54 157.32 < .01 PR20–29 < PR30–39~PR90–99
Within 10515.74 5210 2.02 PR30–39 < PR40–49~PR90–99
PR40–49 < PR60–69~PR90–99
PR50–59 < PR60–69, PR80–89, PR90–99
PR60–69, PR70–79 < PR90–99
ExamSS = Examination Stress Scale; SS = sum of squares; DF = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
Time studying per day

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Schooldays
1.00
0.50 Weekend
0.00

BCTEST PR gourps

Figure 3. Average number of hours spent studying per day by levels of learning achievement. BCTEST = Basic Competence Test;
PR = percentile rank.

ANOVA and Scheffé post-hoc tests revealed that the PR90–99 group reported significantly more time
spent studying at weekends than other groups (ps < .01); however, no significant difference was
observed among students in the PR60–69, PR70–79, and PR80–89 groups (ps > .06).

Discussion
Learning achievement and test anxiety
The present study used the analytical method of Sung et al. (2016) to divide students into 10 groups
according to their PR scores on the BCTEST and calculate the average value of their ExamSS scores.
The results indicated that middle achievement students in the PR40–49, PR50–59, and PR60–69
groups had the highest ExamSS scores, while the scores tapered off towards the two extremes of the
BCTEST performance spectrum. Regression analysis also revealed a significant negative quadratic
term in the regression, which supports the hypothesis of an inverted-U shape relationship between
test anxiety and achievement. The correlations between the ExamSS and BCTEST scores in the low-
12 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

achieving group and the high-achieving group also pointed to the same conclusion (Table 4). For
students at the bottom of the academic achievement ladder, test anxiety was positively correlated
with the BCTEST scores, with a correlation coefficient of .24. However, among high-achieving
students, a negative relationship was observed between test anxiety and the BCTEST scores, with
a correlation coefficient of −.10. These results replicate the findings of Sung et al. (2016).

Learning achievement and reasons for test anxiety

As students experienced different degrees of test anxiety, we wanted to determine whether the
reasons for test anxiety varied for students of different levels of academic achievement. The results
of the present study suggest that this is the case. For students of the lowest academic achievement, the
main reasons cited for test anxiety were “However hard I work, my grades do not improve” and “I don’t
understand what the teachers teach.” For lower-middle- to middle-achieving students, the main
reasons were “I won’t be able to get into a state school” and “I don’t meet my own standards.” For high-
achieving students, the main reasons were “I don’t meet my own standards” and “I can’t maintain
a certain standard of performance” – the higher the level of academic achievement, the higher the
percentage of students who chose “I don’t meet my own standards” as the primary reason. In part, the
findings indicate that entrance exam scores for middling junior high school students tended to fall
around the threshold of admission to state schools, so these students face the risk of not being
admitted, and this uncertainty may explain why their level of test anxiety was higher than that of their
low-performing and high-achieving peers. Overall in Taiwan, a general preference exists for state
schools over most private schools (Sung et al., 2016, 2014). Thus, a social environment in which it is
important to do well on entrance examinations, combined with the cultural preference for state
schools, can generate uncertainty about their future among medium-achieving students, which will
in turn produce test anxiety. Among students who had above-medium academic performance, the
higher the performance, the less worry about not getting into a state school, although high-
performing students may experience test anxiety because they are competing to get into the “best”
schools. By contrast, students with the lowest academic performance also did not worry about getting
into a state school, because they were not in fact in a position to do so. The results of the present study
also revealed that for high-achieving students, test anxiety mainly derived from their own high self-
demanding standards. Even among students who ranked in the top 10% for academic performance,
over half still cited “I don’t meet my own standards” as the primary reason for test anxiety.
These findings can serve as a point of reference for teachers and counsellors and highlight the fact
that it is necessary to consider students’ levels of academic performance if one is to help them
alleviate test anxiety. Eliminating the test anxiety experienced by low-achieving students (below
PR30) most urgently requires not psychological counselling but diagnostic tests and remedial
teaching, because their test anxiety stems from the inability to keep up with classes and their
persistent underperformance in various academic tests. Over time, such students may suffer from
learned helplessness, which will in turn affect their psychological health (Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, &
Seligman, 1992; Qian & Alvermann, 1995). Diagnostic tests enable teachers to understand which
units or concepts are too difficult for students and the appropriate remedial teaching strategy
required (Yin, Sims, & Cothran, 2012). The idea is that teaching and testing should be tailored to
students’ abilities in order to enhance their confidence and avoid situations where students simply
do not understand class content or feel that however hard they work, their grades will remain poor.
What is needed by students of lower middle to middle academic performance (PR30–69) is career
counselling. The main reasons for test anxiety among these students are “I don’t meet my own
standards” and “I can’t get into a state school.” These findings support the initial hypotheses of this
present study by revealing that students with middle achievement face the uncertainty of entry into
state schools and experience higher levels of test anxiety. To alleviate uncertainty over admission,
such students need help to understand where their aptitudes and interests lie, so that they can aim
for programmes that suit them rather than just aiming for state schools in general. A comprehensive
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 13

career counselling system, including aptitude tests, interest tests, visits to various departments, and
career exploration, such as O*net (https://www.onetonline.org/), SIGI3 (http://www.sigi3.org/), and
the Computerized Career Testing System in Taiwan (http://career.ntnu.edu.tw/), could help students
with academic achievement in the PR30–69 range.
In addition to career advice, students of middle to high academic performance (PR70–99) may
need counselling to alleviate their test anxiety. Our findings revealed that the main reason for anxiety
among such students was “I don’t meet my own standards” – over half of the students with test
scores above PR90 cited this as their top reason. Although students in the PR70–99 group are more
likely to be admitted to a state school, they may be expected – by wider society, parents, teachers, or
even themselves – to win admission to an elite school. Thus, in order to alleviate test anxiety among
high-achieving students, in addition to career path counselling, such students may benefit from
counselling solutions that help them revise their goals and stop being too self-demanding.

Cram school attendance and time spent in study

In countries where entrance examinations tend to be held in great esteem, the entire social environment
constantly reminds students that achieving high scores on entrance exams and admission to a superior
school ensures them a more promising future (Kim & Lee, 2010). For example, students in Hong Kong are
most concerned about academic achievement, and they believe that studying to obtain more impressive
grades would enable them to obtain future higher-income jobs, which in turn would gain them higher
social status (Hui, 2000; Shek & Chen, 1999). Naturally, this type of social environment leads to certain
forms of collective examination-oriented behaviours, such as cram school tuition and overstudy. To
investigate the reasons for test anxiety, the present study also examined the number of days students
attended cram school and the amount of time they spend studying to determine whether medium-
achieving students expended more effort than other students. We found that the number of days
students attended cram school each week rose with the level of academic performance, peaking with
the PR50–59 group, who attended cram school almost 3 days a week, on average. This result is consistent
with the aforementioned hypothesis asserting that medium-achieving students not only experience
higher test anxiety but also spend more days attending cram schools each week. This suggests that
such students’ test anxiety may stem from a feeling that they are getting “no return on their investment.”
Similar results were obtained for the amount of time students spent in study. Figure 3 reveals that total
study time on schooldays gradually increases as academic achievement rises from low to medium, then
slowly levels off from medium to high achievement; in addition, the differences among medium- to high-
achieving students were not significant. At weekends, the PR90–99 group spent 3.91 h in study, which was
significantly higher than any other groups. The PR50–59 group spent approximately 3.22 h, which was
significantly higher than students under PR49 but lower than students above PR60. Although the results
regarding the time students spent on study at weekends did not support the hypothesis that middling
students spent more time than others, they do, however, support the claim that the time spent by
middling students was not much lower than that by their high-achieving peers. Middling students
attended cram school more often, indicating that they and their parents did not invest less in education
compared with high-achieving students. However, the difference in levels of academic achievement
means that middling students face the risk of not being able to get into a state school, and this uncertainty
leads to anxiety.
The aforementioned results also demonstrated that the uncertainty is both explicit and implicit. The
explicit uncertainty lies in the fact that middling students face the risk of not being admitted to a state
school, which stems from a system where schools are pitted against each other and have different levels of
prestige, and over time such comparisons create an environment in which state schools are favoured over
private schools. Thus, uncertainty over admission is an explicit uncertainty. The implicit uncertainty arises
because, even though they invest in education to the same or even a greater degree than their high-
achieving counterparts, students of medium academic achievement fail to make a breakthrough and
continue to face uncertainty, while feeling their efforts go unrewarded.
14 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

Application and future direction

This study investigated levels of test anxiety experienced by Grade 9 students and the major reasons for
their anxiety. The study’s contribution is 3-fold – to theory, practice, and policy. In terms of theory, the
findings indicate that students of different levels of academic achievement experience different levels of
test anxiety, and the reasons for this test anxiety also differ. In addition, students of middling achievement
may experience uncertainty because even though they expend much effort and spend the same amount
of time as their peers studying and attending cram school, they still risk not being admitted to a state
school. We believe that countries that have similar high-stakes testing, such as the United States, the
United Kingdom, Australia, and other Asian nations, could also investigate this test anxiety phenomenon
and consider student academic achievement. In the future, the present authors plan to focus on research
into the students themselves. For example, investigating students’ coping strategies and the relationship
between personal characteristics and test anxiety in order to determine whether there are differences in
examination-obsessed cultures that have not been observed in previous studies.
On the practical level, the present findings provide a clear direction for education professionals
and counsellors in Taiwan and indicates that they should take student academic level into account in
order to help students alleviate test anxiety. Students of different academic levels experience
different degrees of test anxiety (Chao & Sung, 2019; Sung et al., 2016), and the reasons for their
anxiety differ, which means there is no one-size-fits-all solution for test anxiety. Low-achieving
students need diagnostic tests and remedial teaching to directly address the problems they
encounter with schoolwork. Middling students need career path counselling to encourage them
to look beyond state schools so as to reduce the stress of making a career choice and the test anxiety
arising from the expectations of parents and teachers. High-achieving students need counselling
solutions to help them adjust their self-expectations and to acknowledge that they are already
performing well enough (Chao, Sung, Kuo & Cheng, 2018). In the future, we plan to devise different
methods aimed at alleviating test anxiety among students of different levels and then examine the
effectiveness of these methods.
In terms of educational policy, our research findings on test anxiety and academic achievement could
be made available to education authorities for use in longitudinal studies that examine changes in test
anxiety for students of different levels under different school admission and educational policies. For
example, when the 12-year national educational policy is implemented in Taiwan, will levels of test anxiety
fall across the board, or will they fall by the largest margin for students whose scores are around PR50
(resulting in a flatter distribution of test anxiety levels across students of all abilities)? Can cram school
attendance be reduced? Can we give Taiwanese students more time for things other than study? These
are some of the issues that need to be examined in policy implementation. In the future, the present
authors also intend to focus on longitudinal research to study the effect of implementing the 12-year
national education plan on levels of test anxiety among students. The present study investigates test
anxiety among junior high school students by using a standardized achievement test and examining
reasons for test anxiety, and cram school attendance and time spent in study. Our results provide a point
of reference for future educational research.

Disclosure statement
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [101-2511-S-003-058-MY3,102-2511-S-003-
001-MY3,102-2911-I-003-301]; Higher Education Sprout Project of the Ministry of Education, Taiwan [HESP_2019].
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 15

Notes on contributors
Tzu-Yang Chao, Ph. D., is a Senior Research Faculty in the Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing,
National Taiwan Normal University. His research interests include measurement theory, test anxiety of adolescents, and
teacher education.
Yao-Ting Sung, Ph. D., is a Chair Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National
Taiwan Normal University. His research interests include computer assisted testing, psychological and educational
testing, and career information analysis and application.

ORCID
Tzu-Yang Chao http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5049-5836

References
Beidel, D.C., Turner, S.M., & Taylor-Ferreira, J.C. (1999). Teaching study skills and test-taking strategies to elementary
school students. Behavior Modification, 123, 630–692.
Beilock, S.L. (2008). Math performance in stressful situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 339–343.
Beilock, S.L., & Carr, T.H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in
math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.
Bond, C.F., & Richardson, K. (2004). Seeing the Fisher Z-transformation. Psychometrika, 69(2), 291–303.
Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris, France: International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szücs, D. (2015). The chicken or the egg? The direction of the relationship between
mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1987.
Cassady, J.C., & Johnson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27, 270–295.
Chao, T.Y., & Sung, Y.T. (2019). Examination stress and personal characteristics among taiwanese adolescents: A latent
class approach. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 253–285.
Chao, T.Y., Sung, Y.T., Kuo, H.N., & Cheng, Y.Y. (2018). Effectiveness of group counseling sessions aimed at alleviating
examination stress among junior high school students. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 50(1), 31–52.
Chapell, M.S., Blanding, Z.B., Silverstein, M.E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and
academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 268–274.
Gati, I., Gadassi, R., Saka, N., Hadadi, Y., Ansenberg, N., Friedmann, R., & Asulin-Peretz, L. (2011). Emotional and
personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties: Facets of career indecisiveness. Journal of Career
Assessment, 19(1), 3–20.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77.
Hirsh, J.B., Mar, R.A., & Peterson, J.B. (2012). Psychological entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-related
anxiety. Psychological Review, 119, 304–320.
Hui, E.K. (2000). Personal concerns and their causes: Perceptions of Hong Kong Chinese adolescent students. Journal of
Adolescence, 23(2), 189–203.
Hutchings, M. (2015). Exam factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people. London: The
National Union of Teachers.
Johnson, M.L., & Johnson, J.R. (1996). Daily life in Japanese high schools. ERIC Digest, 1–6. https://www. ericdigests.org/
1997-4/daily.htm
Kim, S., & Lee, J.H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–296.
Kim, T. (2005). Shadow education: School quality and demand for private tutoring in Korea. Kyoto: Kyoto University.
Kline. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Korhonen, J., Nyroos, M., Jonsson, B., & Eklöf, H. (2018). Additive and multiplicative effects of working memory and test
anxiety on mathematics performance in grade 3 students. Educational Psychology, 38(5), 572–595.
Lee, M. (2003). Korean adolescents’ “examination hell” and their use of free time. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2003(99), 9–22.
Lee, M., & Larson, R. (2000). The Korean ‘examination hell’: Long hr of studying, distress, and depression. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 29, 249–272.
McCarthy, J.M., & Goffin, R.D. (2005). Selection test anxiety: Exploring tension and fear of failure across the sexes in
simulated selection scenarios. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 282–295.
Musch, J., & Broeder, A. (1999). Test anxiety versus academic skills: A comparison of two alternative models for
predicting performance in a statistics exam. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 105–116.
16 T.-Y. CHAO AND Y.-T. SUNG

Muse, L.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. (2003). Has the inverted-U theory of stress and job performance had a fair test?
Human Performance, 16(4), 349–364.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J.S., & Seligman, M.E. (1992). Predictors and consequences of childhood depressive
symptoms: A 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(3), 405.
Putwain, D., & Daly, A.L. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of English secondary school
students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554–570.
Putwain, D.W. (2008). Test anxiety and GCSE performance: The effect of gender and socio-economic background.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 319–334.
Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students’
learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 282.
Schwarzer, C., & Buchwald, P. (2003). Examination stress: Measurement and coping. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16,
247–249.
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27–41.
Shek, D.T., & Chen, L.K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal child. The Journal of Psychology, 133,
291–303.
Spielberger, C.D. (1980). Preliminary professional manual for the test anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Srivastava, A.K., & Krishna, A. (1991). A test of inverted U hypothesis of stress performance relationship in the industrial
context. Psychological Studies, 34, 34–38.
Stöber, J. (2004). Dimensions of test anxiety: Relations to ways of coping with per-exam anxiety and uncertainty. Anxiety,
Stress, and Coping, 17, 213–226.
Struthers, C.W., Perry, R.P., & Menec, V.H. (2000). An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping,
motivation, and performance in college. Research in Higher Education, 41, 581–592.
Sung, Y.T., & Chao, T.Y. (2015). Construction of the test anxiety scale for adolescent students. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(1), 44–58.
Sung, Y.T., Chao, T.Y., & Tseng, F.L. (2016). Reexamining the relationship between test anxiety and learning achievement:
An individual- differences perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 241–252.
Sung, Y.T., Huang, L.Y., Tseng, F.L., & Chang, K.E. (2014). The aspects and ability groups in which little fish perform worse
than big fish: Examining the big-fish-little-pond effect in the context of school tracking. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39(3), 220–232.
Thomas, C.L., Cassady, J.C., & Finch, W.H. (2018). Identifying severity standards on the cognitive test anxiety scale: Cut score
determination using latent class and cluster analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(5), 492–508.
Wang, W.L., Sung, Y.T., Sung, F.C., Lu, T.H., & Li, C.Y. (2008). Low birth weight, prematurity, and paternal social status:
Impact on the basic competence test in Taiwanese adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 153, 333–338.
Wren, D.G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and internal construct validation.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 227–240.
Yeh, T.K., Chang, C.Y., Hu, C.Y., Yeh, T.G., & Lin, M.Y. (2009). Association of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT)
polymorphism and academic achievement in a Chinese cohort. Brain and Cognition, 71(3), 300–305.
Yin, M., Sims, J., & Cothran, D. (2012). Scratching where they itch: Evaluation of feedback on a diagnostic English
grammar test for Taiwanese university students. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(1), 78–104.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.