ArticleThe British journal of educational psychology2025
Study longer or study effectively? Better study strategies can compensate for less study time and predict goal achievement and lower negative affect.
Article in The British journal of educational psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey of Preservice Teachers' Examination Stress Patterns: Contextualising the Transactional Stress Model in High-Stakes Testing.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The Mental Health Costs of Shadow Education: The Duration of Shadow Education and Its Depressive Effects on Chinese Adolescents.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Study longer or study effectively? Better study strategies can compensate for less study time and predict goal achievement and lower negative affect.The British journal of educational psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe hypothesis that study strategies can compensate for less study time in predicting learning outcomes has often been proposed but rarely tested empirically.
methodsIn the present study, 231 university students reported their daily perceived time spent on self-study, study strategies (planning, monitoring, concentration and procrastination) and goal achievement over a 30 days period. RESULTS AND
conclusionResults showed that both more overall perceived study time and better study strategies (better planning, monitoring, and concentration, less procrastination) predicted higher goal achievement at the end of the day. In addition, perceived study time and study strategies interactively predicted goal achievement. When students reported better planning, monitoring and concentration as well as lower procrastination, less time was needed to achieve a high goal level compared to days on which they studied less strategically. In other words, when students studied less strategically, they had to invest more time to reach a higher goal level. In addition, perceived study time and study strategies were related to students' negative affect. Negative affect was particularly high when students studied for many hours with low concentration, and it was particularly low when students studied for only a few hours and procrastinated less. Taken together, the results suggest a compensatory effect of study time and study strategies on daily goal achievement and affect, highlighting the need to teach students effective study strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.