Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36976135›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2023

Academic Buoyancy: Overcoming Test Anxiety and Setbacks.

David William Putwain, Joost Jansen In de Wal, Thijmen van Alphen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David William PutwainSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts Professional and Social Studies, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L1 9DE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5196-4270
Joost Jansen In de WalResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht, 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4969-750X
Thijmen van AlphenResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht, 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3983-0370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High levels of test anxiety can be damaging for academic achievement, wellbeing, and mental health. It is important, therefore, to consider those psychological attributes that may offer protection against the development of test anxiety and its negative consequences, thereby contributing to a potential positive future life trajectory. Academic buoyancy, the ability to respond effectively to academic pressures and setbacks, is one such attribute that offers protection from high test anxiety. We begin by defining test anxiety and a brief review of the literature to consider the harmful nature of test anxiety. This is followed by a definition of academic buoyancy and brief review of the literature to consider the beneficial character of academic buoyancy. Next, we describe the Self-Regulatory Executive Function model of test anxiety and consider the mechanisms and processes by which academic buoyancy exerts beneficial effects on test anxiety. The paper concludes with a consideration of critical issues for the conceptualisation and measurement of academic buoyancy, arising from the synergies, connections, and relations, theorised with test anxiety, and how these may inform future studies.

Indexed as

academic buoyancyself-regulatory executive function modeltest anxiety

Identifiers

PMID36976135
PMCPMC10056025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.