Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40208350›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

An integrated approach to understanding negative math experiences.

Anita A Grabowska, Richard J Daker, Katie Ho, Ian M Lyons

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Anita A GrabowskaDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA. anita.grabowska11@gmail.com.
Richard J DakerDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA.
Katie HoDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA.
Ian M LyonsDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite numerous studies devoted to mathematics aptitude and achievement, research on how individuals experience math has remained relatively fragmented. Here, using a combined theoretical and data-driven approach, we sought to characterize self-reported math experiences, with a particular focus on negative math experiences. An examination of existing literature led to the identification of eight potential facets of math experiences: emotional, cognitive, physiological, behavioral, testing, classroom/social performance, self-efficacy, and attitudinal. We generated survey items intended to probe experiences within each of these facets and constructed a preliminary questionnaire of 107 candidate items, comprising positively and negatively framed statements about one's math experiences, with data from a final analytic sample of N = 803 adult participants. Focusing on negative items, four key factors emerged from the data: negative attitudes and avoidance, physiological experiences, testing and educational experiences, and cognitive and emotional experiences. These results point to opportunities for contact between literatures (e.g., between negative attitudes and avoidance behaviors), and toward relatively unexplored topics, such as the importance of negative physiological experiences when facing math. On a practical level, we also provide short subscales with sound internal metrics for each of the four factors identified above. Taken together, this work may prove useful on both a theoretical and a methodological level for those looking to develop a unifying framework of negative math experiences.

Indexed as

AptitudeAttitudeMathematicsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf EfficacyYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.