The Moderating Effects of Item Order Arranged by Difficulty on the Relationship between Test Anxiety and Test Performance

Huilin Chen

College of International Education, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.33052                

Abstract

Taking cultural knowledge tests as the case study, this research carries out a series of empirical investigations to verify the moderating effects of item order arranged by difficulty on the relationship between test anxiety and test performance. Groups classified according to test anxiety take tests with two major types of item order: item order arranged according to item bank calibrated item difficulty and item order adjusted according to individual examinee’s perceived item difficulty. The means of those test results are compared between groups to see whether the differences are significant. The investigations obtain the following findings: the higher the test taker’s level of test anxiety, the higher significance of the moderating effects and vice versa; item order adjusted according to individual examinee’s perceived item difficulty may have a more significant moderating effect than item order arranged according to item bank calibrated item difficulty has.

Keywords

Test Anxiety; Item Order; Item Bank Calibrated Item Difficulty; Individual Examinee’s Perceived Item Difficulty

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2]	Bodas, J., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). Test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 65-88. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2342-x
[3]	Carlson, J. L., & Ostrosky, A. L. (1992). Item sequence and student performance on multiple-choice exams: Further evidence. The Journal of Economic Education, 23, 232-235. doi:10.2307/1183225
[4]	Chen, H. (2009). A proposal on the verification model of validity equivalence between PBLT and CBLT. Foreign Language World, 3, 73- 80.
[5]	Gao, S. (2008). The interact of testing anxiety and approaches: A study based on non-English majors. Journal of Northwest University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 38, 168-171.
[6]	Gohmann, S. F., & Spector, L. C. (1989). Test scrambling and student performance. Journal of Economic Education, 20, 235-238. doi:10.2307/1182298
[7]	Green, B. F., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb01039.x
[8]	Hopko, D. R., Hunt, M. K., & Armento, M. E. (2005). Attentional task aptitude and performance anxiety. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 389-408. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.389
[9]	Kunnan, A. J. (1995). Test taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Munz, D. C., & Jacobs, P. D. (1971). An evaluation of perceived item-difficulty sequencing in academic testing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 195-205. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1971.tb02251.x
[11]	Pekrun, B., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test anxiety: Development and validation of the test emotions questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 287-316. doi:10.1080/10615800412331303847
[12]	Rocklin, T., & Thompson, J. M. (1985). Interactive effects of test anxiety, test difficulty, and feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 368-372.
[13]	Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929- 938. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.929
[14]	Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test anxiety inventory: Preliminary professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
[15]	Weiss, D. J. (2008). Manual for the fast test professional testing system (Version 2). St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.