The efficacy of interventions for test-anxious university students: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. (April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Huntley, Christopher D.; Young, Bridget; Temple, James; Longworth, Melissa; Smith, Catrin Tudur; Jha, Vikram; Fisher, Peter L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of anxiety disorders. Volume 63(2019:Apr.)
• Page Start: 36
• Page End: 50
• Publication Date: 2019-04
• Subjects: Test anxiety -- Meta-analysis -- Academic performance -- Interventions; Anxiety -- Periodicals; Anxiety Disorders -- Periodicals; Angoisse -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.8522
• DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.01.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0887-6185

Abstract

Highlights: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of interventions for test-anxious undergraduates. Interventions reduce test anxiety (TA). Interventions for TA improve academic performance. Quality of trial reporting was poor. Larger, higher quality studies, with longer follow-ups are needed. Abstract: Test anxiety (TA) is highly distressing and can significantly undermine academic performance. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for university students with TA have been conducted, but there has been no systematic review of their efficacy. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of interventions for test-anxious university students in: (i) reducing TA, and (ii) improving academic performance. We searched for RCTs published in English language peer-reviewed journals. Forty-four RCTs met our eligibility criteria ( n = 2, 209). Interventions were superior to control conditions at post-treatment for reducing TA ( g = −0.76) and improving academic performance ( g = 0.37). Interventions were superior to control conditions at follow-up. Subgroups analyses found most support for behaviour therapy. Cognitive-behavioural therapy, study skills training, and combined psychological and study skills training interventions show promise but lack evidence for their longer-term efficacy, and results are based upon a small number of studies. Evidence of publication bias was found and poor quality of reporting meant that confidence in results should be moderated. Future RCTs should be conducted and reported with greater rigour, have larger samples, and examine newer interventions.