Statistics anxiety, state anxiety during an examination, and academic achievement.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of students identify statistics courses as the most anxiety-inducing courses in their curriculum. Many students feel impaired by feelings of state anxiety in the examination and therefore probably show lower achievements. AIMS: The study investigates how statistics anxiety, attitudes (e.g., interest, mathematical self-concept) and trait anxiety, as a general disposition to anxiety, influence experiences of anxiety as well as achievement in an examination. SAMPLE: Participants were 284 undergraduate psychology students, 225 females and 59 males. METHODS: Two weeks prior to the examination, participants completed a demographic questionnaire and measures of the STARS, the STAI, self-concept in mathematics, and interest in statistics. At the beginning of the statistics examination, students assessed their present state anxiety by the KUSTA scale. After 25 min, all examination participants gave another assessment of their anxiety at that moment. Students' examination scores were recorded. Structural equation modelling techniques were used to test relationships between the variables in a multivariate context. RESULTS: Statistics anxiety was the only variable related to state anxiety in the examination. Via state anxiety experienced before and during the examination, statistics anxiety had a negative influence on achievement. However, statistics anxiety also had a direct positive influence on achievement. This result may be explained by students' motivational goals in the specific educational setting. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide insight into the relationship between students' attitudes, dispositions, experiences of anxiety in the examination, and academic achievement, and give recommendations to instructors on how to support students prior to and in the examination.

"Plateau"-related summary statistics are uninformative for comparing working memory models.

Performance on visual working memory tasks decreases as more items need to be remembered. Over the past decade, a debate has unfolded between proponents of slot models and slotless models of this phenomenon (Ma, Husain, Bays (Nature Neuroscience 17, 347-356, 2014). Zhang and Luck (Nature 453, (7192), 233-235, 2008) and Anderson, Vogel, and Awh (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011) noticed that as more items need to be remembered, "memory noise" seems to first increase and then reach a "stable plateau." They argued that three summary statistics characterizing this plateau are consistent with slot models, but not with slotless models. Here, we assess the validity of their methods. We generated synthetic data both from a leading slot model and from a recent slotless model and quantified model evidence using log Bayes factors. We found that the summary statistics provided at most 0.15 % of the expected model evidence in the raw data. In a model recovery analysis, a total of more than a million trials were required to achieve 99 % correct recovery when models were compared on the basis of summary statistics, whereas fewer than 1,000 trials were sufficient when raw data were used. Therefore, at realistic numbers of trials, plateau-related summary statistics are highly unreliable for model comparison. Applying the same analyses to subject data from Anderson et al. (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011), we found that the evidence in the summary statistics was at most 0.12 % of the evidence in the raw data and far too weak to warrant any conclusions. The evidence in the raw data, in fact, strongly favored the slotless model. These findings call into question claims about working memory that are based on summary statistics.