Do parents have exam anxiety,too? The predictive role of irrational beliefs and perfectionism with parental exam anxiety in explaining students’ exam anxiety

Abstract

Objectives: Exam Anxiety is a condition influenced by both personal and environmental factors as well as cultural, family, and family-related systems. Accordingly, the current study aims at determining the predictive role of parental exam anxiety with irrational beliefs and perfectionism in explaining students’ exam anxiety. Methods: The study included a total of 1006 participants, students (N = 503 (58%) female and (42%) male) and parents (N = 503 (65%) female and (35%) male) of these students. The Test Anxiety Inventory, Exam Anxiety Scale for Parents, The Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescence, and Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale were used as data collection instruments for this study. Results: The regression analyses indicated that exam anxiety in students was significantly predicted by the worry sub-dimension of parental exam anxiety, irrational beliefs as well as concern over mistakes, parental criticism, and doubting of actions sub-dimension of perfectionism. Conclusion: The findings are discussed and explained based on the relevant literature.

Keywords

exam anxiety in students parental exam anxiety perfectionism irrational beliefs

Introduction

Many exams are held at the local, national or international level to measure student success, and millions of students worldwide go through the preparation process for these exams. Similarly, every year, millions of students in Turkey take various exams at different stages of education for success-assessment purposes and to enroll in higher-level education institutions (Baytemir & İlhan, 2018; Baytemir, 2019). Especially the central exams in Turkey for eighth and twelfth-grade students have an important role in their careers. At the end of the eighth grade, a central placement exam is held by the Ministry of National Education (MEB) and students are enrolled in certain types of public high schools according to their scores. Although students can be enrolled in the public high schools close to their residence without taking the central placement exam (MEB, 2019), students who get higher scores from the central exam get the right to enroll in more successful high schools. In 2021, approximately 14% of secondary school graduates in Turkey were placed in secondary schools that accept students by placement exam (MEB, 2021). Similar to enrolling in a high school, students also enroll in a higher education institution (colleges, undergraduate programs, etc.) through a central placement exam. To enroll in a higher education institution, both the central higher education placement exam score and the overall secondary school academic achievement score (OBP) are used. However, the impact of the OBP is low compared to the higher education placement exam. Students enroll in a university according to their overall score (YKS, 2022). Approximately 15% of students who took the higher education placement exam in 2021 were enrolled in an undergraduate program (YKS, 2021).

As indicated by this data, exam scores play an important role in being able to enroll in a better school. Because the limited student quota in certain fields of higher education increases the competition among students, exams can cause great stress on both students and families (TEDMEM, 2017). Previous studies conducted both in Turkey and other countries indicated that 15-40% of the students significantly suffer from exam anxiety (King & Ollendick, 1989; Putwain & Daly, 2014; Yıldırım, 2007). However, although students in Turkey experience higher exam anxiety than students in some countries and lower exam anxiety than students in some countries (see Bodas & Ollendick, 2005), the results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 revealed that the schoolwork-related anxiety of Turkish students is higher than the average of OECD countries (OECD, 2017).

High levels of anxiety emerge when individuals encounter situations and scenarios that trigger feelings of fear or worry such as a situation in which the abilities of individuals are tested (von der Embse et al., 2018). Exam anxiety is about a fear one feels during assessment situations (Liebert & Morris, 1967) and is a complex and multidimensional feeling consists of cognitive, psycho-social, affective, and behavioral responses (Hong, 1998). According to the general framework, exam anxiety has two dimensions as worry and emotionality (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). The worry dimension, which represents the cognitive component of exam anxiety, is about students’ negative feelings like failing an exam. On the other hand, the emotionality dimension includes involuntary responses such as fast heart rhythm, irritability, nausea, and sweating during an exam (Öner, 1990; Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). Much of the past activity research highlighted that exam anxiety negatively affects academic performance (Ergene, 2011; Eum & Rice, 2011; Koçkar et al., 2002; McDonald, 2001; Owan et al., 2020; Segool et al., 2013; Trifoni & Shahini, 2011). A high level of anxiety felt by students leads to the development of strategies for motivation and learning that make learning difficult (Freedman-Doan, 1993). They also exhibit lower motivations, have difficulty in remembering, and display more tendency to make mistakes (Trifoni & Shahini, 2011), and perceive exams as a threat and display intense emotional responses such as believing that they will fail in the exam (Ergene, 2003).

Theoretical framework

Exam anxiety through an ecological perspective

In the 1970s, Bronfenbrenner, to gain in-depth insight into child development, argued that children are within the contexts characterized by different levels and are affected by them. These contexts can be both at the micro (small/local/proximal) and macro (large-scale/distal) levels (Hayes et al., 2017). In his ecological theory, Bronfenbrenner (1977) put a developing child into four systems from proximal to distal namely, ‘microsystem’, ‘mesosystem’, ‘exosystem’, and ‘macrosystem’. Accordingly, to understand child development, the systems around and closely associated with children’s lives such as family, school, and peers as well as the distal systems such as politics, culture and the interaction between these systems should be considered. With the criticism in the later years that the impact of surrounding systems is overestimated and the individual is underestimated, the ecological theory is changed to the bio-ecological theory (Tudge et al., 2009). The Bio-ecological theory considers the person-context reciprocity or interconnectedness of systems around an individual. Accordingly, the reciprocal interactions between children and representatives of external systems are called proximal processes (Burns et al., 2015). Process (P) is located at the center of the model. It is assumed that these convergent processes, referring to the interaction between the individual and the environment, are the primary mechanisms of human development. The impact of these processes on the development depends on the characteristics of persons (P), to proximal and distal environmental contexts (C), and time periods (T) (Hayes et al., 2017).

From an ecologic perspective, the characteristics of persons, surrounding systems, and their reciprocal interaction positively and negatively affect individuals. Previous studies argued that in addition to personal characteristics, exam structure-related factors, family in the proximal context, as well as those in the distal context such as social, cultural, and economic factors are related to exam anxiety among students (Lowe et al., 2008; Peleg-Popko & Klingman, 2002). For example, from a microsystem perspective, the interaction of children with their families in the proximal context can be used to determine exam anxiety. It was reported that children of controlling (Gherasim & Butnaru, 2012) and pressure (Ringeisen & Raufelder, 2015) parents experience more exam anxiety. Similarly, in the distal context (exosystem), changes made in the exam systems by education administrators might affect students. In a study conducted in Turkey (İnkaya, 2019) a sudden change in the 2018 exam system caused more exam anxiety among students compared to the students who entered the same exam in the following years. Besides, personality characteristics, gender, and age at which the exam was taken also affect anxiety levels. Previous studies found that students’ irrational beliefs (Rohsenow & Smith, 1982) and a perfectionist personality (Arana & Furlan, 2016) are associated with exam anxiety. Furthermore, women experience more exam anxiety than men (Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Trifoni & Shahini, 2011). Moreover, exam anxiety was found to be greater among college students compared to high-school students (Doğan, 2020). Therefore, it can be argued that both proximal and distal systems, personality characteristics, and time factors are effective in exam anxiety.

The current study tries to explain exam anxiety in terms of both parent-child interaction and personal characteristics through ecological theory which emphasizes the interaction of multiple systems. Zeidner and Mathews (2005) emphasized the person-situation interaction (e.g., situational threat) in explaining test anxiety in the self-regulatory model. However, other situational influences such as parents may also have a significant effect on test anxiety (Putwain et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important to examine the role of environmental factors, especially parents on exam anxiety. In this regard, the current paper aims at determining the predictive role of parents’ exam anxiety as well as irrational beliefs and perfectionism in exam anxiety among students.

Exam anxiety in the context of family interaction

High anxiety may result when a child's achievement does not meet the high-performance expectations of parents or school and negative evaluations regarding child's success and these evaluations are internalized by the child and thus anxiety increases (Çapulcuoğlu & Gündüz, 2013; Freedman-Doan, 1993; McDonald, 2001). Putwain (2009) found that academic stress and motivation for success are associated with fear of failure through being judged or conditional acceptance by others. They found that the anxiety felt by students during the exams is not only related to being successful or self-esteem but also associated with negative parental judgments. The family environment and communications among family members are recognized as important factors for students’ anxiety. Previous studies revealed that unclear, uninspiring, and inconsistent communications among family members negatively affect students’ academic performance and leads to an increase in exam anxiety and constant anxiety (Peleg-Popko, 2002; Peleg-Popko & Klingman, 2002) and parental pressure pushes students to performance-oriented goals and this leads to exam anxiety (Putwain et al., 2010). Burstein and Ginsburg (2010) stated that compared to a relaxing and reassuring speech, talking anxiously increases exam anxiety in children and therefore causes children to exhibit avoidant behaviors. Since communications in family and academic expectations of family lead to exam anxiety among children, children's exams can also cause negative emotions such as anxiety in parents (Harpell & Andrews, 2012). Accordingly, family's expectations for their child's success and family communication patterns are effective for exam anxiety among students. In a similar manner, students’ exam anxiety affects parents directly or indirectly.

Exam anxiety in parents and the transmission of anxiety from parent to child

Baytemir and İlhan (2018) emphasized that just like students, parents also experience exam anxiety and they called this anxiety Exam Anxiety in Parents. Accordingly, parents feel anxiety about the exams of their children and may reflect their anxiety to their children. According to the report of The Turkish Education Association (TEA) (2010), millions of students and families in Turkey are exposed to heavy psychological pressure due to exam stress; and being successful in the exams has become the priority of families rather than students. Anxiety felt by parents can lead to anxiety in children (Woodruff-Borden et al., 2002). Results from previous papers indicated that parental anxiety is associated with anxiety in children (Alisinanoğlu & Ulutaş, 2003; Bögels & van Melick, 2004; Peleg-Popko, 2004; Whaley et al., 1999). In this regard, it was highlighted that anxiety levels are higher in children of anxious parents and parents of anxious children compared to other parents or children (Borelli et al., 2015).

Based on these findings, concerns regarding the mechanisms of transmission of anxiety from parent to child attract attention among researchers. It was found that anxiety disorders are mostly associated with familial factors, thus both biological and environmental factors identified as the potential mechanisms of transmission (Möller et al., 2015). It has been stated that genetic predispositions are responsible for approximately 30-40% of anxiety; however, environmental factors are also important for anxiety (Borelli et al., 2015; McClure et al., 2001). A growing number of studies argue that anxiety is a family-related phenomenon. The argument that anxiety is contagious in family communications is put forward by scholars of psychoanalytic theory (e.g.,: Horney, 1999; Sullivan, 2013). Late psychoanalytic approaches (e.g., Bowlby, 1988) emphasized the parent-child relationship quality in the transition of anxiety. Similar to the transmitting of anxiety from family to child, exam anxiety can be transmitted to child from family, since it is a type of anxiety.

Also, specific parental behaviors are considered risk factors for the development of anxiety in children. Especially three specific behavior types are more common among anxious parents and these behaviors play an important role in the development of anxiety in children (Ginsburg et al., 2006). These behaviors are overcontrol, modeling of anxiety, and criticism (Drake & Ginsburg, 2012; Ginsburg et al., 2006). Overcontrol behavior refers to an excessive amount of parental control over children’s activities and limited autonomy given to the child. It is believed that this behavior prevents children from having new and challenging experiences, limits the development of coping skills and self-confidence, thus causes anxiety in children. Modeling of anxiety refers to children’s internalization of anxiety by modeling anxious thoughts and feelings displayed by parents in their relationship. It is believed that especially anxious parents exhibit verbal and behavioral anxiety states such as catastrophizing. Criticism is characterized by excessive criticism, hostility, and exclusion of the child. This reduces child’s self-competence and self-worth, thus child’s non-adaptive cognitive beliefs cause anxiety (Drake & Ginsburg, 2012; Ginsburg et al., 2006). Such parental behaviors increase not only anxiety but also exam anxiety in children (Çolak, 2009; Güler & Çakır, 2013). Accordingly, the current study hypothesized that parents’ exam anxiety predicts students’ exam anxiety.

Association of exam anxiety with irrational beliefs and perfectionism

Students with irrational beliefs have more anxiety, depression, and stress (Chan & Sun, 2020). It was found that exam anxiety is mostly associated with the worry dimension that includes one's cognitions (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Spielberger & Vagg, 1995; Williams, 1996). Exam anxiety is a multidimensional concept and includes cognition (Hong, 1998; Zeidner, 1998). In this regard, a student’s cognitions about exam, that is, beliefs about exam can affect the intensity of their feelings. According to the cognitive behavioral approach (Beck, 1993; Beck & Clark, 1997), the primary cause of anxiety is not the events themselves, but the meanings that individuals attribute to events and situations. Automatic thoughts, intermediate beliefs, and core beliefs, also known as the cognitive triad are cognitive structures that control one’s emotional responses. According to the ABC model of the rational emotive behavior therapy (Ellis et al., 2010), people face undesirable events (A), about which they display rational and irrational beliefs/cognitions (B), Such beliefs cause emotional, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes (C), while rational beliefs produce adaptive and healthy results, irrational beliefs cause maladaptive and unhealthy outcomes. According to Ellis (2010), such irrational beliefs are thoughts that are not effective (imperative sentences such as expressions with have to/must, overgeneralizing or catastrophizing) and disrupt people. Previous reports showed that irrational beliefs are significantly related to exam anxiety (Boyacıoğlu & Küçük, 2011; Güler & Çakır, 2013; Türküm, 2003). In a study by Wong (2008) conducted with college students, the authors determined that cognitive triad, irrational beliefs, negative automatic thoughts, and dysfunctional cognitive problems increase exam anxiety. In another study carried out with college students (Khaledian et al., 2013), a positive correlation was found between irrational beliefs and exam anxiety. Also, they determined that both worry and irrational beliefs negatively affect students’ academic success. Accordingly, students’ irrational expectations about an exam, dysfunctional thought structures (e.g.,: I must get full marks on every exam, etc.) may increase anxiety during both exam preparation stage and exam.

Perfectionism is setting high standards for performance that accompanied with making overly critical self-evaluations (Frost et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998). Frost et al. (1990) discussed perfectionism under six dimensions: (a) concern over mistakes, (b) doubts about actions, (c) parental criticism, (d) high parental expectations, (e) personal standards and (f) organization. In this context, the last two dimensions are associated with positive perfectionism, whereas the first four dimensions are related to negative perfectionism. Negative perfectionism is associated with pathologic symptoms. Negative perfectionists never find their effort adequate and always feel that they have to do better, whereas positive perfectionists try hard to achieve their goals and get satisfied with their efforts (Ashby & Rice, 2002: Stoeber & Otto, 2006). According to a meta-analysis study examining studies carried out over the last 20 years on perfectionism and exam anxiety (Burcaş & Creţu, 2021), while there is an important correlation between students’ exam anxiety and their levels of perfectionism, the correlation with negative perfectionism found to be highest. Similarly, some studies (Baytemir, 2019; Hanımoğlu & İnanç, 2011) indicated that the predictive role of negative perfectionism on exam anxiety is higher than positive perfectionism. Eum and Rice (2011) found that negative perfectionism significantly correlated with more cognitive exam anxiety among college students. Results of another study revealed that (negative) perfectionism that is associated with evaluation anxiety in high school students significantly predicts exam anxiety (Abdollahi et al., 2018). Accordingly, the authors concluded that irrational high expectations and excessive self-criticism may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and loss of self-confidence, increase the fear of being judged and these feelings may cause higher levels of anxiety especially in evaluation situations.

The present study

There are various reasons for students’ exam anxiety, which negatively affects their academic success. Bodas and Ollendick (2005) state that exam anxiety can be explained through the broad framework of a contextualist approach presented especially by Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. They also argued that the USA and western countries did not give enough importance to contextual variables related to the emergence and maintenance of exam anxiety such as socialization practices and value systems. However, a culture-sensitive approach should consider the role of individual (e.g., negative self-evaluations), interpersonal (e.g., family), and ecological (e.g., examination system) factors while addressing exam anxiety. From an ecological perspective, students’ personality characteristics such as perfectionism (Arana & Furlan, 2016), irrational beliefs (Rohsenow & Smith, 1982), and gender (Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Trifoni & Shahini, 2011) can be be associated with exam anxiety. In the distal context, changes made in the exam system by education administrators (see İnkaya, 2019) can also affect exam anxiety among students. In proximal contexts, on the other hand, some scholars (e.g.,: Peleg-Popko & Klingman, 2002; Zeidner & Mathews, 2005) highlighted parental and familial factors regarding their relation to student’s exam anxiety. A literature review revealed that many studies on child and parent interaction have been reported such as parental attitudes, parental expectations, and factors related to family communication to understanding student's exam anxiety. Parent's anxiety level (e.g.,: Bögels & van Melick, 2004; Peleg-Popko, 2004) and parenting styles (e.g.,: Drake & Ginsburg, 2012; Ginsburg et al., 2006) are identified as factors related to the development of anxiety in children. However, there is no study that examines the effects of exam anxiety perceived by parents on students’ level of exam anxiety. Due to the importance of exams in Turkey in shaping student’s further life, such exams bring considerable pressure on both students and parents. As stated in the report of the TEA (2010), parents also experience excitement and stress as if they have taken their children’s exams. Accordingly, the current study tries to explain exam anxiety among students by considering both the characteristics of the students and the family system in their proximal context through the ecological theory that emphasizes the interaction of multiple systems. Specifically, the present paper examines the predictive role of irrational beliefs, perfectionism, and parental exam anxiety on students’ exam anxiety.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were selected using a convenience sampling strategy. Our sample consisted of 1006 participants: 503 students (294 (58%) girls and 209 (41%) boys) enrolled in different schools in northern Turkey, and their 503 parents (325 (65%) women and 175 (35%) men). The average age of the students was 15.06 with an age range between 13 and 18. On the other hand, the mean age of the parents was 41.78 with an age range between 31 and 60. The distribution of the 503 students by grade level was 15 seventh grade, 183 eighth grade, 107 ninth grade, 70 tenth grade, 48 eleventh grade, and 79 twelfth grade.

Measures

The Personal Information sheet, Test Anxiety Inventory, Exam Anxiety Scale for Parents, The Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescence, and Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale were used as data collection tools for this study. All scales used in this study were validated in the context of Turkey and were commonly adopted and used as valid and reliable instruments. Detailed information regarding the data collection instruments is given below.

Personal Information Sheet. The student version of the Personal Information sheet was prepared to collect personal information such as gender, age, grade, and school information. On the other hand, the parent version of the Personal Information sheet was used to obtain gender and age information of the parents.

The Test Anxiety Inventory. This inventory was developed by Spielberger (1980) and adapted into Turkish by Öner (1990). The inventory consists of two subscales, worry (sample item: ‘While taking examinations I have an uneasy, upset feeling’) and emotionality (sample item: The harder I work at taking a test, the more confused I get). The scale consists a total of 20 items, 8 items for worry and 12 items for emotionality. Items are answered on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from one to four. The adaptation of the scale was carried out with primary, secondary, high school, and college students. For validity assessment, factor analysis and criterion-related validity analysis were conducted (Öner, 1990). Results of the validity analyses showed that the Turkish version of the scale has two subscales as in the original scale. These two factors explain 40.9% of the total variance in exam anxiety. Criterion validity analysis revealed that the Test Anxiety Inventory had significant correlations with the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory that varied between .39 and .70 (Öner, 1990). In the reliability analysis, KR-20 alpha coefficients were varied between .89 and .69 and test-retest reliability coefficients varied between .70 and .90 (Öner, 1990). In the current study, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated as .89, .92, and .91 for worry, emotionality, and the total scale, respectively.

Exam Anxiety Scale for Parents (EASP). This scale was developed by Baytemir and İlhan (2018) to measure parents’ anxiety with regard to their students’ exams. The scale consists of 18 items, 9 items in each subscale (worry and physiological). Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from one to five. A sample item of the physiological dimension was ‘I am short of breath on his/her exam days’ and for the worry dimension, ‘I believe that his/her future depends on his/her success in exams’. Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) were performed to evaluate the validity of the scale (Baytemir & İlhan, 2018). CFA analysis indicated that the scale consists of two subscales, worry and physiological. These subscales explained 55.44% of the total variance. CFA results showed that the two-dimensional structure had acceptable fit values (χ²/df = 2.2, RMSEA = .058, CFI = .98, NFI = .97, TLI = .98) (Baytemir & İlhan, 2018). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the total scale and subscales varied between .88 and .93 (Baytemir & İlhan, 2018). In the current study, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as .93.

The Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescence (IBSA) The scale was developed by Çivitci (2006). This 5-point Likert-type scale consists of 21 items with three sub-dimensions, namely the demands for success (sample item: ‘I certainly cannot admit defeat in a game.’), the demands for respect (sample item: ‘Teachers should always be indulgent and kind to their students’), and the demands for comfort (sample item: ‘It's better to delay problems rather than deal with them’). EFA was conducted for validity assessment of the scale and it was found that the three-factor scale explained 33% of the total variance (Çivitci, 2006). Criterion-related validity analysis revealed that the correlations of IBSA with Test Anxiety Inventory and Depression scale were .45 and .32, respectively (Çivitci, 2006). For reliability assessment of the scale, the test-retest method and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were used. Accordingly, using a three-week test-retest interval, test-retest reliability coefficients of IBSA were calculated as .81 for the total scale and varied between .67 and .84 for subscales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated as .71 for the total scale and varied between .57 and .62 for subscales (Çivitci, 2006). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as .67.

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale ( FMPS ). This scale was developed by Frost et al. (1990) and adapted into Turkish by Özbay and Mısırlı-Taşdemir (2003) by applying to high-school students. This 5-point Likert-type scale consists of 35 items grouped in six subscales, namely ‘concern over mistakes (sample item: ‘If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure’) , parental criticism (sample item: ‘My parents never tried to understand my mistakes’), doubting of actions (sample item: ‘I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things I do’) , parental expectations (sample item: ‘My parents set very high standards for me’) , personal standards (sample item: ‘I set higher goals than most people’) , and organization (sample item: ‘I try to be an organized person’)’. The results of the EFA conducted for validity assessment showed that all scale items were grouped in six subscales and these subscales explained 47.8% of the total variance (Özbay & Mısırlı-Taşdemir, 2003). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for subscales varied between .61 and .87, and was calculated as .83 for the total scale (Özbay & Mısırlı-Taşdemir, 2003) Similarly, in the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the subscales varied between .60 and .87, and .85 for the total scale.

Procedure

The sample for this study was selected using a convenience sampling method. Permission was requested from the directorate of national education to implement practices in successful secondary and high schools. The Directorate of National Education allowed to implement practices in 3 sary schools and 3 high schools. In these schools, the study was conducted in the classes allowed by the school administrators. Data collection instruments and personal information sheet were administered face-to-face by the researcher with the student participants in both fall and spring semesters of 2018, and the spring semester of 2019, following obtaining their informed written consent. Surveys had lasted approximately 25-30 min.

The parents of the students who voluntarily participated in the study were sent sealed envelopes on the same day of their student’s data collection, including the informed consent form, the purpose of the research and instructions, a personal information sheet to collect gender and age information of the parent, and the Parent Exam Anxiety Scale. The survey completed by students and the envelope sent to their parents were paired and coded with the same identification number. The instructions in the envelope stated that if parents have more than one child, they should answer the scale considering the child they are most worried about their exam. The instructions also state that the parent who is most concerned about the education of their child should fill out the survey. After completing the documents and surveys, the parents sent back them, including written consent, in a closed envelope to the school. The surveys were sent to approximately 1200 parents however, 550 parents responded. The students whose parents did not respond to the survey were excluded from the study. Forty-seven surveys were excluded from the study due to missing gender/age information or more than 1 item are missing. After excluding surveys with missing and incorrect data, a total of 503 data were further analyzed. Thus, 503 survey responses from both parents and students were included in the study. It was ensured that the participant students are not siblings.

The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficient, and regression analysis. Kurtosis and skewness values were examined to determine if the data is normally distributed. The calculated kurtosis and skewness values indicated that the data for this study were normally distributed (see Table 1). Moreover, it was found that the correlation coefficients between variables varied between .03 and 59. Thus, it was decided that there is no multicollinearity problem for regression analysis (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Pearson correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics.

Variables		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1-Irrational beliefs (S)		-
2-Concern over mistakes (S)		.42**	-
3-Parental criticism (S)		.36**	.48**	-
4-Doubting of actions (S)		.27**	.53**	.46**	-
5-Parental expectations (S)		.33**	.37**	.37**	.25**	-
6-Personal standards (S)		.14**	.39**	.00	.16**	.36**	-
7-Organization (S)		-.04	.04	-.16**	-.01	.17**	.37**	-
8-PEAW (P)		.14**	.10*	.11*	.14**	.20**	.02	.03	-
9-PEAP (P)		.14**	.04	.08	.14**	.12**	.05	.00	.59**	-
10-Students’ exam anxiety (S)		.37**	.38**	.38**	.36**	.22**	.05	.01	.31**	.16**	-
	Mean	2.82	2.41	2.15	2.63	2.92	2.97	3.73	3.35	1.82	2.22
	Sd	9.34	6.68	3.68	4.20	5.20	4.70	5.98	8.79	8.29	12.21
	Skewness	.10	.52	.70	.08	.03	.30	-.49	-.13	1.20	.35
	Kurtosis	.21	-.04	.22	-.46	-.87	-.14	-.53	-.88	.70	-.48

N = 503, * p < .05 ** p < .01, PEAW: Parents’ exam anxiety worry dimension, PEAP: Parents’ exam anxiety physiological dimension, S: Student Data, P: Parent Data

Results

The descriptive statistics and relationships between variables are presented in this section. In the following sections, the results of the multiple regression analysis, which was conducted to determine the predictive strength of independent variables in explaining dependent variables, are presented.

Correlations and descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics and correlation analysis between students’ exam anxiety and sub-dimensions of irrational beliefs, perfectionism, and parents’ exam anxiety are presented in Table 1.

As seen in Table 1, irrational beliefs showed significant positive correlations at the p < .01 level with all sub-dimensions of perfectionism except organization, with sub-dimensions of parents’ exam anxiety, and students’ exam anxiety. The worry dimension of parents’ exam anxiety showed low positive significant correlations with all sub-dimensions except organization and personal standards sub-dimensions of perfectionism, whereas the physiological dimension showed low positive significant correlations with only doubting of actions and parental expectations sub-dimensions. Furthermore, students’ exam anxiety showed positive significant correlations at the p < .01 level with four sub-dimensions of perfectionism (Concern over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, Doubting of Actions, Parental Expectations), whereas no significant correlations were found with the other two sub-dimensions (Personal Standards, Organization). Finally, students’ exam anxiety had a moderate significant correlation with the worry dimension of parents’ exam anxiety, whereas it showed a significant but weak correlation with the physiological dimension.

Regression analyses

Student gender, parent gender, and grade level, which might be associated with students’ exam anxiety, were included in the regression analysis as control variables. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive role of irrational beliefs, sub-dimensions of perfectionism, and sub-dimensions of parents’ exam anxiety in explaining students’ exam anxiety and the obtained results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Hierarchical regression analysis predictive role of irrational beliefs, perfectionism, and parents’ exam anxiety in explaining students’ exam anxiety.

Predictors	B	SE	β	t	p	R²	ΔR²
Step 1
Student gender	−4.189	1.113	-.17	−3.77	.00
Parent gender	.014	1.165	.01	.012	.99
Grade level	-.234	.361	-.03	-.647	.52		.029**
Step 2
Irrational beliefs	.271	.055	.21	4.95	.00
Concern over mistakes	.224	.094	.12	2.38	.02
Parental criticism	.609	.158	.18	3.86	.00
Doubting of actions	.481	.131	.17	3.68	.00
Parental expectations	-.008	.104	-.00	-.074	.94
Personal standards	-.152	.117	-.06	−1.44	.19
Organization	.118	.082	.06	1.44	.15
PEAW	.358	.065	.26	5.54	.00
PEAP	−061	.068	-.04	-.90	.37	.358**	.328**

N = 503, * p < .05 ** p < .01, Control variables (Student gender, Parent gender, Grade level), PEAW: Parents’ exam anxiety worry dimension, PEAP: Parents’ exam anxiety -physiological

We found that the contribution of the control variables entered into the first step of the regression model was significant (F_{(3, 498)} = 5.02, p < .00). The effect of parent gender and grade level on the model were found to be not significant (p > .05), whereas, student gender was significant (β = .17, p < .01). The mean exam anxiety score of the female students was higher than the male students. All control variables explained 2.9% of the total variance in exam anxiety. In the second step after entering the control variables, irrational beliefs, sub-dimensions of perfectionism, and sub-dimensions of parental exam anxiety were included in the regression equation. At this step, the contribution of all the variables entered into the model was found to be significant (F_{(12, 489)} = 22.675, p < .00). After controlling the variables entered into the first step of the model, we found that 32.8% of the total variance in exam anxiety was explained with the variables entered into the second step of the model.

Regarding the contribution of the variables entered into the second step of the model, the highest contribution was made by the worry dimension of parents’ exam anxiety (β = .26, p < .01), followed by the irrational beliefs (β = .21, p < .01). After these two dimensions, parental criticism (β = .18, p < .01), doubting of actions (β = .17, p < .01), and concern over mistakes (β = .12, p < .05) were the most contributing dimensions, respectively.

Discussion

The present study examines the predictive role of irrational beliefs, sub-dimensions of perfectionism, and sub-dimensions of parents’ exam anxiety in explaining students’ exam anxiety. Pursuant to the literature findings, some variables that might be associated with exam anxiety such as student gender, parent gender, and grade level were included in the regression analysis as control variables. After these variables were controlled, the evaluation of the regression analysis results showed that students’ exam anxiety was significantly predicted by the worry sub-dimension of the parents’ exam anxiety, irrational beliefs, and parental criticism, concern over mistakes, and doubting of actions sub-dimensions of perfectionism. According to Bronfenbrenner’s theory, personality characteristics, proximal and distal contexts, processes, and time affect individual development. In the current study, both personality characteristics and proximal context were examined to explain students’ exam anxiety. Accordingly, our findings indicated that in addition to the personality characteristics, parental anxiety within the microsystem in the proximal context also predicts students’ exam anxiety.

Among predictor variables, the most contributing variable was the worry sub-dimension of the parents’ exam anxiety. This finding is consistent with previous reports (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Williams, 1996). The worry sub-dimension, which represents the cognitive aspect of exam anxiety, has a stronger relationship with exam anxiety (Liebert & Morris, 1967; Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). This fact indicates that perhaps parents, when faced with an evaluation situation about their child’s exams, make self-talks that their child will fail. Or, they may produce thoughts that their child is not ready or their child’s friends will be more successful. Moreover, parents may worry about their child will not have the opportunity to get a good education or a good job if they fail. And also, they worry about how to explain a bad exam result to relatives and neighbors. Since anxiety is contagious (Horney, 1999; Sullivan, 2013) parents’ anxiety about their kid’s exam may be directly transmitted to the child. Or, when parents are worried that their child will fail, they may make negative evaluations about their child’s exam (Freedman-Doan, 1993; McDonald, 2001) and thus child's anxiety level may increase.

Similar to the findings of Burstein and Ginsburg (2010), if parents mention their worries to the child (e.g., What happens if you fail the exam? Your exam is coming and you don't study at all; All your efforts will be in vain, etc.), the child may experience higher anxiety. Considering that worried parents display more overcontrol, modeling of anxiety, and criticism behaviors (Ginsburg et al., 2006), parents with higher anxiety about their child’s exam may exhibit such parental behaviors. For example, when parents have more anxiety about their child’s exams, they may more strictly control study hours, may forbid their child from going outside, or may provide constant instructions on how to study. Similarly, parents may consciously or unconsciously show their concerns in their behaviors or verbal expressions (taking quick steps in the house while talking about the exam, showing a worried facial expression, or saying things like, ‘when I was a student, we didn't have the opportunities you have today, I didn't even have the opportunity to buy a test book’). Or, when parents are anxious about their child’s exam, they may fear that the child will fail and overly criticize their child and display intolerant behaviors. Just as each of these parenting styles increases child’s anxiety, such parental behaviours can also increase the exam anxiety experienced by children. Considering person-context reciprocity or congruence according to the ecological theory, a reciprocal interaction exists between parent and child. Probably, since parental anxiety increases children’s exam anxiety, in a similar way, children’s anxiety might increase parents’ anxiety.

Considering the fact that especially the central exams in Turkey have an important role in student’s careers, parents may consider their child’s exams a vital issue. According to the report of the TEA (2010), parents also experience excitement and stress as if they have taken the exam just like their children. In other words, parents consider their child’s exams as if their exams and they think and feel accordingly. Such parental thoughts and feelings about children’s exams in the Turkish culture may be due to economic, social, and cultural reasons. One of the important reasons might be the Turkish society’s structure which is mostly based on self-construal. Markus and Kitayama (1991) highlighted that the structure of self-concept changes from culture to culture and generally, relational self exists in eastern societies. According to Kağıtçıbaşı (2010), relational self refers to some aspect of the one’s self consists of others’ self. Accordingly, parents associate their child's success and failure in exams with their own selves and may consider themselves unsuccessful when their child fails (Baytemir, 2019), thus parents may consider exam situations worrying.

It was found that after the worry sub-dimension of parents’ exam anxiety, the most contributing predictor variable to the model is irrational beliefs. As explained in the previous discussion, the worry sub-dimension of exam anxiety is strongly related to cognition, that is, thoughts. This result is consistent with previous studies (e.g.,: Türküm, 2003; Wong, 2008). It can be argued that anxiety about cognition decreases performance (Zeidner, 1998), makes remembering difficult for the student during the exam and pushes students to make mistakes (Trifoni & Shahini, 2011), causes perceiving exams as a threat and increases thoughts about failing the exam (Ergene, 2003), as well as makes it more difficult to focus on performance-related tasks and increases negative self-evaluations (Wong, 2008). Accordingly, students’ anxiety may increase during the exam because they focus on their own self or thoughts that they will fail in the exam, instead of increasing the probability of success by focusing on the exam tasks and thus display a performance below their capacity. According to the cognitive behavioral approach (Beck, 1993; Beck & Clark, 1997), the main source of anxiety is not the exam but the meaning attributed to the exam by student. The way students perceive the exam and the value they attach to the exam are important in determining their anxiety. When a student perceives an exam as hard to pass or important and vital due to its consequences, that student may experience more anxiety before and during the exam. Similarly, as Ellis (2010) emphasized, if a student has irrational beliefs which are effective thinking structures, student may develop ‘I must…’ thoughts such as ‘I must get a very high score on this exam’ or ‘If I fail this exam, I will become an unsuccessful person’, or catastrophizing thoughts such as ‘Failing to reach my goal in this exam is a terrible situation’. Since such thoughts are not effective and functional, they may boost exam anxiety in students and negatively affect performance.

Finally, this study found that concern over mistakes, parental criticism, doubting of actions sub-dimensions of perfectionism significantly predict students’ exam anxiety. Considering that personal standards and organization sub-dimensions, which did not significantly contribute to the model, are associated with positive perfectionism; whereas sub-dimensions which significantly contribute to the model are associated with negative perfectionism and more effective in explaining pathology (Ashby & Rice, 2002: Stoeber & Otto, 2006), it can be argued that results of this study are consistent with the other reports in the literature. Some studies indicated that negative perfectionism (Baytemir, 2019; Eum & Rice, 2011) is more effective than positive perfectionism in predicting exam anxiety. Considering that concern over mistakes (Frost et al., 1990) is an important dimension in explaining perfectionism, a student's mind can focus on thoughts about making mistakes during an exam. Similarly, students’ doubts about their own behaviors, focusing on the same questions and topics over and over before and during the exam, and frequently questioning their actions might prevent them from showing their actual performance or they may be more sensitive to avoid mistakes since they frequently criticized by parents during childhood. Irrational expectations and critical and questioning attitudes about one's own self (Abdollahi et al., 2018) may increase doubts about one's own efficacy and thus decrease self-confidence. In such evaluation situations, a student may experience higher exam anxiety.

Future directions and implications for school practices

Based on the findings of the current paper, the following recommendations can be made to educational researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers. Further studies may be designed to examine interventions for decreasing parents’ anxiety or its relationship with child’s exam anxiety. In some cultures, parents may be experiencing different levels of exam anxiety or may not be experiencing such anxiety. Instruments may be developed to measure parents’ exam anxiety in different cultures and their relation to students’ exam anxiety may be examined. For example, Bodas and Ollendick (2005) pointed out that in collectivist cultures, in addition to the individual variables, contextual factors (family, education system) also affect students’ anxiety. Our results are consistent with these findings. Accordingly, students’ exam anxiety can be explained within a certain cultural context and system. Similar studies can be designed especially in collectivist cultures such as China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Iran, which constitute a great part of the world's population. Thus, the underlying mechanisms of exam anxiety can be better explained. The interaction of parents and children who have high exam anxiety with those parents and children who have lower exam anxiety on academic and exam-related issues may also be examined. Further studies may focus on mediator variables between parental exam anxiety and student exam anxiety such as students’ self-efficacy, achievement orientation and self-esteem, irrational beliefs, and perfectionism. Also, how parental exam anxiety affects parental behaviors (overcontrol, criticism, modeling of anxious behaviors) and contributes to students’ exam anxiety may be investigated. Further studies may examine children (gender, grade level, success level, and disability status of the child as well as the type of school the student attends) that parents have more exam anxiety about. Parents’ personality characteristics, jobs, income, as well as perceived exam anxiety, can be examined regarding their relation to students’ exam anxiety.

School mental health professionals may perform exam anxiety intervention practices not only for students but also for parents. During these intervention practices, children may attend sessions with their parents. Thus, both parents and children can discuss their exam-related concerns frankly in a proper interaction environment. In such an environment, parents and children discuss their common feelings about the exam together and thus they can both develop awareness. Also, school mental health professionals may inform parents regarding behaviors that decreasing exam anxiety in children. Policy-makers and educational supervisors may inform parents regularly about exam-related issues such as contents and schedule of the exams, and revisions in the exam system. Specialists can consider the predictive roles of parental perceptions to exam anxiety, irrational beliefs, and perfectionism while preparing programs to reduce exam anxiety.

Study limitations

Finally, this study has some limitations. First, since parent exam anxiety is a new concept and as stated in the discussion, it has a culture-specific aspect, this point should be taken into accounting when generalizing. Secondly, to better understand the sample characteristics, items related to socio-economic level, parent occupation, and student achievements could be added to the personal information sheet. In line with the purpose of this study, of the two parents, only the parent who was more interested in their child's academic process responded to the personal information sheet and the scales. However, at the beginning of the study, we could have planned a match for the gender of the students versus the gender of the parents while responding to the scales. The lack of this information can be considered a limitation. Third, this paper is designed as a cross-sectional study, and therefore, the change in parents’ exam anxiety over time and its predictive strength for students’ exam anxiety can be examined in longitudinal studies. It is also a limitation that no causal conclusions can be determined, due to the cross-sectional design used in this study. Since the data were collected only from a specific culture that serves as a bridge between the western and eastern world, future studies may be conducted in a wide array of contexts. Another limitation of the study is we used only self-report data in the analysis and this could cause common method bias. Finally, the reliability values of the sub-scales of the Frost multidimensional perfectionism scale, which vary between .60-.87, can be considered another limitation.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The data of the present study has not been made public anywhere. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the author on request.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

ORCID iD

Kemal Baytemir

Author biography

Kemal Baytemir is an Associate Professor in Psychological Counseling and Guidance from the Gazi University. His research interests include social emotional development (for example: attachment theory, interpersonal/social competence), positive psychology, parent-child exam anxiety, parent- child interaction.

References

Abdollahi

Carlbring

Vaez

Ghahfarokhi

S. A.

(2018). Perfectionism and test anxiety among high-school students: The moderating role of academic hardiness. Current Psychology, 37(3), 632–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9550-z

Alisinanoğlu

Ulutaş

(2003). Çocukların kaygı düzeyleri ile annelerinin kaygı düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(128), 65–71.

Arana

F. G.

Furlan

(2016). Groups of perfectionists, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping in Argentine students. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.001

Ashby

J. S.

Rice

K. G.

(2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes, and self-esteem: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(2), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00183.x

Baytemir

(2019). Perfectionism, irrational beliefs, need for social approval and gender as predictors of parent exam anxiety. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 8(1), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.417814

Baytemir

İlhan

(2018). Development of the exam anxiety scale for parents: A validity and reliability study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 16(1), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.25115/EJREP.V16I44.1945

Beck

A. T.

(1993). Cognitive therapy: Past, present, and future. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.2.194

Beck

A. T.

Clark

D. A.

(1997). An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00069-1

Bodas

Ollendick

T. H.

(2005). Test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-2342-x

10.

Borelli

J. L.

Margolin

Rasmussen

H. F.

(2015). Parental overcontrol as a mechanism explaining the longitudinal association between parent and child anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(6), 1559–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9960-1

11.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic books.

12.

Boyacıoğlu

Küçük

(2011). Irrational beliefs and test anxiety in Turkish school adolescents. The Journal of School Nursing, 27(6), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840511417631

13.

Bögels

S. M.

van Melick

(2004). The relationship between child-report, parent self-report, and partner report of perceived parental rearing behaviors and anxiety in children and parents. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1583–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.014

14.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

15.

Burcaş

Creţu

R. Z.

(2021). Multidimensional perfectionism and test anxiety: A meta-analytic review of two decades of research. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09531-3

16.

Burns

M. K.

Warmbold-Brann

Zaslofsky

A. F.

(2015). Ecological systems theory in school psychology review. School Psychology Review, 44(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-15-0092.1

17.

Burstein

Ginsburg

G. S.

(2010). The effect of parental modeling of anxious behaviors and cognitions in school-aged children: An experimental pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(6), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.02.006

18.

Cassady

J. C.

Johnson

R. E.

(2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094

19.

Chan

H. W. Q.

Sun

C. F. R.

(2020). Irrational beliefs, depression, anxiety, and stress among university students in Hong Kong. Journal of American College Health, 69(8), 827–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1710516

20.

Çapulcuoğlu

Gündüz

(2013). Öğrenci tükenmişliğini yordamada stresle başaçıkma, sınav kaygısı, akademik yetkinlik ve anne-baba tutumları değişkenlerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi-Uluslararası E-Dergi, 3(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2013.3111.a

21.

Çivitci

(2006). Ergenler için mantık dışı inançlar ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(25), 69–80.

22.

Çolak

(2009). Genel lise son sınıf öğrencilerinin sınav kaygı düzeyleri ve anne-baba tutumları. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 57–80.

23.

Doğan

(2020). Lise ve üniversite öğrencilerinde sınav kaygısının karşılaştırılması. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.637421

24.

Drake

K. L.

Ginsburg

G. S.

(2012). Family factors in the development, treatment, and prevention of childhood anxiety disorders. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0109-0

25.

Ellis

(2010). Overcoming destructive beliefs, feelings, and behaviors: New directions for rational emotive behavior therapy. Prometheus Books.

26.

Ellis

David

Lynn

S. J.

(2010). Rational and irrational beliefs: A historical and conceptual perspective. In David

Lynn

S. J.

Ellis

(Eds.), Rational and irrational beliefs: Research, theory, and clinical practice (pp. 3–22). Oxford University Press.

27.

Ergene

(2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction a meta-analysis. School Psychology International, 24(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343030243004

28.

Ergene

(2011). Lise öğrencilerinin sınav kaygısı, çalışma alışkanlıkları, başarı güdüsü ve akademik performans düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 320–330.

29.

Eum

Rice

K. G.

(2011). Test anxiety, perfectionism, goal orientation, and academic performance. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.488723

30.

Freedman-Doan

C. R.

(1993). Factors influencing the development of academic anxiety in chiłdren: A path analytic model [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of The American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

31.

Frost

R. O.

Marten

Lahart

Rosenblate

(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967

32.

Gherasim

L. R.

Butnaru

(2012). The effort attribution, test anxiety and achievement in sciences: The moderating effect of parental behaviour. The International Journal of Learning, 18(10), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v18i10/47671

33.

Ginsburg

G. S.

Grover

R. L.

Cord

J. J.

Ialongo

(2006). Observational measures of parenting in anxious and nonanxious mothers: Does type of task matter? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_16

34.

Güler

Çakır

(2013). Lise son sınıf öğrencilerinin sınav kaygısını yordayan değişkenlerin incelenmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(39), 82–94.

35.

Hanımoğlu

İnanç

B. Y.

(2011). Seviye belirleme sınavına girecek olan ilköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinde sınav kaygısı mükemmeliyetçilik ve anne baba tutumu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 351–366.

36.

Harpell

J. V.

Andrews

J. J.

(2012). Multi-informant test anxiety assessment of adolescents. Psychology (Savannah, Ga ), 3(07), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.37075

37.

Hart

B. A.

Gilner

F. H.

Handal

P. J.

Gfeller

J. D.

(1998). The relationship between perfectionism and self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00116-5

38.

Hayes

O’Toole

Halpenny

A. M.

(2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Routledge.

39.

Hong

(1998). Differential stability of individual differences in state and trait anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 10(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80142-3

40.

Horney

(1999). The neurotic personality of our time. Routledge.

41.

İnkaya

(2019). Sınav sistemi değişikliklerinin öğrencilerin anksiyete düzeylerine etkisi (Master thesis, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey). https://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/bitstream/11452/15056/1/Mehmet%20%C4%B0nkaya%20Tez.pdf.

42.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(2010). Günümüzde insan ve insanlar: Sosyal psikolojiye giriş. Evrim Yayınevi.

43.

Khaledian

Saghafi

Moradi

Khairkhah

(2013). Investigating the relationship of ırrational beliefs with anxiety and their effect in two different academic systems in Iran (Under graduate collage students of payam nour university and islamic azad university). Journal of International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(5), 1185–1191.

44.

King

N. J.

Ollendick

T. H.

(1989). Children’s anxiety and phobic disorders in school settings: Classification, assessment, and intervention issues. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 431–470. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059004431

45.

Koçkar

Aİ

Kılıç

B. G.

Şener

(2002). İlköğretim öğrencilerinde sınav kaygısı ve akademik başarı. Çocuk ve Gençlik Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi, 9(2), 100–105.

46.

Kumaran

Kadhiravan

(2015). Personality and test anxiety of school students. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 4(2), 9–13.

47.

Liebert

R. M.

Morris

L. W.

(1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20(3), 975–978. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1967.20.3.975

48.

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.

Janik

(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, 26(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907303760

49.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

50.

McClure

E. B.

Brennan

P. A.

Hammen

Le Brocque

R. M.

(2001). Parental anxiety disorders, child anxiety disorders, and the perceived parent–child relationship in an Australian high-risk sample. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005260311313

51.

McDonald

A. S.

(2001). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410020019867

52.

MEB (2019). Milli eğitim bakanlığı ortaöğretime geçiş yönergesi. https://www.meb.gov.tr.

53.

MEB (2021). 2021 liselere geçiş sınavı (lgs) kapsamında ilk yerleştirme sonuçları. Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi. No: 18.

54.

Möller

E. L.

Majdandžić

Bögels

S. M.

(2015). Parental anxiety, parenting behavior, and infant anxiety: Differential associations for fathers and mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(9), 2626–2637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0065-7

55.

OECD (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume III): Students’ well-being. OECD Publishing.

56.

Owan

V. J.

Bassey

B. A.

Ini

E. S.

(2020). Interactive effect of gender, test anxiety, and test items sequencing on academic-performance of SS3 students in mathematics in calabar education zone, cross river state, Nigeria. American Journal of Creative Education, 3(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.20448/815

57.

Öner

(1990). Sınav kaygısı envanteri el kitabı. Yükseköğretimde Rehberliği Yayma Vakfı Yayını No:1.

58.

Özbay

Mısırlı-Taşdemir

(2003). Çok boyutlu mükemmeliyetçilik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Paper presentation]. VII. Ulusal Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Kongresi, Malatya, Turkey.

59.

Peleg-Popko

(2002). Children's test anxiety and family interaction patterns. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 15(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800290007281

60.

Peleg-Popko

(2004). Differentiation and test anxiety in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27(6), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.002

61.

Peleg-Popko

Klingman

(2002). Family environment, discrepancies between perceived actual and desirable environment, and children's test and trait anxiety. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 30(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0306988021000025646

62.

Putwain

Daly

A. L.

(2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.953914

63.

Putwain

D. W.

(2009). Assessment and examination stress in key stage 4. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044404

64.

Putwain

D. W.

Woods

K. A.

Symes

(2010). Personal and situational predictors of test anxiety of students in post-compulsory education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X466082

65.

Ringeisen

Raufelder

(2015). The interplay of parental support, parental pressure and test anxiety–gender differences in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.018

66.

Rohsenow

D. J.

Smith

R. E.

(1982). Irrational beliefs as predictors of negative affective states. Motivation and Emotion, 6(4), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998187

67.

Segool

N. K.

Carlson

J. S.

Goforth

A. N.

Von Der Embse

Barterian

J. A.

(2013). Heightened test anxiety among young children: Elementary school students’anxious responses to high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21689

68.

Spielberger

C. D.

Vagg

P. R.

(1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In Spielberger

C. D.

Vagg

P. R.

(Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 3–13). Taylor & Francis.

69.

Stoeber

Otto

(2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2

70.

Sullivan

H. S.

(2013). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Routledge.

71.

TEDMEM (2017). Ortaöğretime geçiş” yerine ortaöğretimi yeniden düşünmek. tedmem.org.

72.

Trifoni

Shahini

(2011). How does exam anxiety affect the performance of university students? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 93–93.

73.

Tudge

J. R.

Mokrova

Hatfield

B. E.

Karnik

R. B.

(2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x

74.

The Turkish Education Association (2010). Ortaöğretime ve yüksek öğretime geçiş sistemi. Duman Ofset.

75.

Türküm

A. S.

(2003). Akılcı olmayan inanç ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2(19), 41–47.

76.

von der Embse

Jester

Roy

Post

(2018). Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-analytic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048

77.

Whaley

S. E.

Pinto

Sigman

(1999). Characterizing interactions between anxious mothers and their children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 826–836. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.67.6.826

78.

Williams

J. E.

(1996). Gender-related worry and emotionality test anxiety for high-achieving students. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2 < 159::AID-PITS9>3.0.CO;2-M

79.

Wong

(2008). The relations of cognitive triad, dysfunctional attitudes, automatic thoughts, and ırrational beliefs with test anxiety. Current Psychology, 27(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9033-y

80.

Woodruff-Borden

Morrow

Bourland

Cambron

(2002). The behavior of anxious parents: Examining mechanisms of transmission of anxiety from parent to child. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103_08

81.

Yıldırım

(2007). Depression, test anxiety and social support among turkish students preparing for the university entrance examination. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 29, 171–184.

82.

YKS (2021). Yerleştirme sonuçlarına ilişkin sayısal bilgiler. https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr.

83.

YKS (2022). Yükseköğretim kurumları sınavı (YKS) kılavuzu. https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr.

84.

Zeidner

(1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. Plenum.

85.

Zeidner

Mathews

(2005). Evaluation anxiety. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141–163). Guildford Press.