Jamieson, J, Peters, B, Greenwood, E, & Altose, A (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Reviewed: September 2019
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Community college developmental mathematics course retention |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Intervention |
0 Semesters |
Exam 2 sample (students still enrolled at exam 2);
|
0.95 |
0.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Community college developmental mathematics course grade |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Intervention |
0 Semesters |
End-of-course sample (students still enrolled at course end);
|
83.31 |
74.89 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: evaluation anxiety subscale |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.24 |
2.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stress appraisal: coping resources subscale (Jamieson et al., 2016) |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.16 |
4.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stress appraisal: task demands subscale (Jamieson et al., 2016) |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.30 |
2.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: learning anxiety subscale |
Stress Reappraisal vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.83 |
1.74 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 69% | |
| White | 31% |
The study was conducted with students in five developmental mathematics classes taught by the same instructor using the same course material at an urban community college in the Midwest (p. 3).
The study sample included students enrolled in a developmental math course at one community college. Referring to the 93 students enrolled in the course across the five semesters, 69 percent were female, 31 percent were male, 69 percent were White/Caucasian, and 31 percent were Black/African American (p. 3). Study participants ranged in age from 18 to 58 years old, with an average age of 29.4 (p. 3). No other demographic information was provided.
Students in the stress reappraisal condition received intervention materials to review immediately prior to taking their second in-class exam in a community college developmental math course. The materials instructed students to read summaries of scientific articles about the adaptive functions of stress. The materials explained that feeling stress during an exam is not harmful and, in fact, aids performance. The materials also explained how stress responses are a coping resource. Students completed two multiple choice questions after each summary to check that they had read the materials. Students took about five to eight minutes to complete the intervention. (p. 3)
Students in the comparison group received control materials, described as “placebo” materials by the study authors, to review immediately prior to taking their second in-class exam in a community college developmental math course. The materials instructed students to read summaries about emotion-suppression techniques to handle stress (based on Peters, Overall, & Jamieson, 2014). The reading materials suggested that ignoring negative thoughts associated with stress during an exam aids performance. Students completed two multiple choice questions after each summary to check that they had read the materials. Students took about five to eight minutes to complete the placebo intervention. (p. 3)
The instructor was blind to the results of random assignment and was thus tasked only to distribute the instruction materials assigned to each student (p. 3).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube