Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
cademic stress may lead to reduced or compromised performance for students. Previous
research has found that greater academic
stress is associated with lower grades1 and student
burnout and is negatively associated with academic
achievement.2 A longitudinal study of medical students concluded that reported levels of stress were
negatively related to their academic performance before and during medical school.3 Research with dental
students has yielded comparable findings. Silverstein
and Kritz-Silverstein, for example, found that stress
increased over time for first-year dental students,
with negative effects on academic performance and
health.4 While stress-provoking events are common
throughout dental education, examinations are often
perceived by students as particularly stressful.5,6 Having some degree of test anxiety appears as a widespread emotion among university students as well.7
165
Coping strategies of planning and seeking social support for instrumental purposes have also been found
to be significantly related to self-efficacy, at least
among first-year undergraduate students.22 When
individuals are not able to successfully cope with a
demanding task, the experience of stress can affect
their self-efficacy perceptions. Feeling a state of
aversive arousal, as occurs in stress responses, could
be taken as a sign of potential failure and decrease
the individuals self-efficacy perceptions.10,11
Taking these previous findings into account, the
aim of this study was to propose a possible model to
explain the relation between test anxiety and dental
student performance. The strategies students use to
cope with the stress experienced during the examination period, as well as their self-efficacy assessments,
were expected to modulate the relation between test
anxiety and grades. In this regard, this study aimed
to test a number of hypotheses: 1) there would be a
relation between the type of coping strategies that
dental students used and their examination-related
self-efficacy assessments; 2) the association between
coping strategies and examination-related selfefficacy would be mediated, at least partially, by the
differing effectiveness of coping strategies (rational
vs. emotional) to reduce students perceived stress
during the examination period; 3) the extent to which
students experienced stress during the examination
period would be associated with grade averages, with
lower grades expected for those students reporting
more stress; and 4) the association between stress
and grade averages would be explained at least partially by the students self-efficacy in undertaking
examinations.
166
Results
Of the 275 dental students invited to participate
in the study, 201 responded for a response rate of
73.6%. Among the participants, 68.7% were female,
and the mean age was 21.2 years (SD=2.90), with a
range from 18 to 40 years. Only 17 students (8.5%)
were over the age of 25 years.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the
study variables. Overall, students reported fair average grades, moderate levels of perceived stress during
the exam period, and moderate scores in exam-related
self-efficacy. On these variables, no statistically
167
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for study variables, by total (n=201), males (n=63), and
females (n=138)
Total
Mean (SD)
Range
Age
Grade average (range 0-10)
Perceived stress (range 1-4)
Exam-related self-efficacy (range 1-6)
Rational coping (range 0-4)
Emotional coping (range 0-4)
21.21 (2.90)
6.50 (1.10)
2.21 (0.62)
3.84 (0.87)
2.62 (0.64)
1.40 (0.59)
18-40
4-9
1-4
1.5-6
1-3.9
0-3.33
Male
Mean (SD)
20.70 (2.58)
6.40 (1.17)
2.02 (0.61)
4.17 (0.78)
2.54 (0.58)
1.26 (0.63)
Female
Mean (SD)
21.44 (3.02)
6.54 (1.07)
2.30 (0.60)
3.69 (0.87)
2.66 (0.67)
1.47 (0.56)
t
1.69
0.88
3.04*
-3.74*
1.15
2.43*
*p<0.05
B S.E. b
-0.21 0.08 -0.16*
0.09 0.04 0.14*
-0.15
0.04
-0.25**
0.21
0.04
0.34**
Table 3. Exam-related self-efficacy regressed on gender, age, coping strategies, and perceived stress
S.E.
R2
Model 1
0.15
Gender
0.42 0.13 0.22**
Age
-0.07 0.06 -0.07
Rational coping
0.14
0.06 0.16*
Emotional coping
-0.19
0.06 -0.22**
Model 2
0.22
Gender
0.33 0.12 0.18**
Age
-0.03 0.06 -0.03
Rational coping
0.07
0.06 0.09
Emotional coping
-0.10
0.06 -0.12
Perceived stress
-0.26
0.06 -0.30**
Note: Dependent variable was exam-related self-efficacy.
Gender was coded as 0 (female) and 1 (male) and used as a
control variable; beta for this variable was not interpreted.
Model 1 and Model 2 were run separately (method: forced
entry).
*p<0.05, **p<0.01
168
strategies. The use of coping strategies was associated with the students levels of stress during the
exam period after controlling for gender and age
(Table 2). Using emotional coping strategies was
positively associated with perceived stress, whereas
a negative relation was found between using rational
coping strategies and stress scores.
In support of our first hypothesis, coping
strategies were associated with the students examrelated self-efficacy after controlling for gender and
age (Table 3, Model 1). Both rational and emotional
coping strategies were significant predictors of the
students self-efficacy assessments. The more the
students reported the use of rational strategies, the
greater exam-related self-efficacy expectancies they
reported, whereas using emotional strategies to cope
with academic stressful events was associated with
lower perceptions of self-efficacy. The students
perceived stress was included in Model 2 of the
regression model, yielding a significant beta coefficient. However, both coping strategies (rational and
emotional) were attenuated and no longer statistically
significant when the stress scores were added to the
model. A statistically significant negative association between students stress and self-efficacy was
found, with higher perceived stress during the exam
period associated with lower reported exam-related
self-efficacy (Table 3, Model 2).
Consistent with our second hypothesis, coping strategies were associated with exam-related
self-efficacy beliefs, at least to some extent, through
the students stress-related perceptions. The indirect
path involving rational coping, perceived stress, and
self-efficacy accounted for 46% of total effects in this
mediation, whereas the indirect path for emotional
coping strategies represented 45.4% of the total effects (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Path model representing complete set of hypothesized relations among variables
Note: Gender and age effects were controlled for; to provide a clear graphical representation, paths for these variables are not shown.
Numbers represent standardized regression weights. Percentage of total effects accounted for by indirect paths are calculated as follows:
for the indirect path from rational coping to exam-related self-efficacy through perceived stress, we computed (-0.25*-0.30)/ [(-0.25*0.30)+0.09]=45.4%; for the indirect path emotional coping to exam-related self-efficacy through perceived stress, we computed (0.34*0.30)/[(0.34*-0.30)-0.12]=46.0%; for the indirect path from perceived stress to average grades through exam-related self-efficacy, we
computed (-0.30*0.26)/[(-0.30*0.26)-0.13]=37.5%.
*p<0.01
Discussion
This study aimed to explore the associations
between stress experienced during exam periods and
academic performance among dental students. By
S.E.
R2
Model 1
0.04
Gender
-0.25 0.17 -0.11
Age
0.00 0.08 0.00
Perceived stress
-0.23 0.08 -0.21*
Model 2
0.09
Gender
-0.35 0.17 -0.15*
Age
0.01 0.08 0.08
Perceived stress
-0.13 0.08 -0.12
Exam-related self-efficacy 0.26 0.08 0.23*
Note: Dependent variable was grade averages. Gender was
coded as 0 (female) and 1 (male) and used as a control variable; beta for this variable was not interpreted. Model 1 and
Model 2 were run separately (method: forced entry).
*p<0.01
169
170
The associations between the variables explored in this study were analyzed using structural
equation modeling (SEM). This analysis showed
that rational coping strategies were associated with
reduced stress perceptions and therefore with higher
exam-related self-efficacy, which was in turn associated with better student grades. Using emotional coping strategies, on the other hand, was associated with
increased stress levels, which may be interpreted as a
signal of lower self-efficacy to successfully complete
exams and poorer academic results.
This study had some limitations. First, a convenience sample was used, and we cannot therefore
assume that the participants were representative of
a broader population. Another potential limitation is
that our sample included students in different years
of their formative program, and they were therefore
taking different exams, which may involve different
coping challenges. In particular, there may have been
different stressors for students taking preclinical
compared to clinical exams. However, the formative
program of dental students introduces practice from
early career years in a progressive manner, and it was
therefore not possible to differentiate purely clinical
students from those not having clinical experience.
Concerning sample size, it is important to note that
our study aimed at identifying possible relations
among variables, for which convenience samples of
medium size are commonly used. Sample size could
have, however, limited the power of regression analyses involving a greater number of predictor variables;
therefore, replication of this study in larger samples
would be advisable.
A second potential limitation is that the use of
self-report measures may have resulted in memory
errors and social desirability bias. This could have
especially affected the students recall of their past
levels of stress and the strategies they used to cope
throughout the exam period. However, the period of
time selected to administer the survey was close to an
exam period, which would have helped to minimize
this possible bias. Overall, internal reliability of the
instruments used was good, with the rational coping
measure yielding a better internal consistency than
the emotional coping measure. The greater number
of items comprising the rational coping measure
and a possible greater heterogeneity of the items
describing emotional strategies could be at the basis
of these differences. Gathering data after the exam
period could help to avoid bias related to the impact
of stress and negative emotions on self-evaluations.
However, students self-reported their academic re-
Conclusion
In spite of its limitations, the results of this
study provide a better understanding of how psychological and behavioral variables, such as stress and
the use of coping strategies, could have an impact not
only on dental students self-efficacy but also on their
grades. Moreover, our research combines inputs from
transactional framework to stress and self-efficacy
theory, which is a novel approach to the topic of
academic performance. Psychological aspects, such
REFERENCES
171
172
24. Remor E. Psychometric properties of a European Spanish version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Span J
Psychol 2006;9(1):86-93.
25. Sandn B, Chorot P. The coping strategies questionnaire:
development and preliminary validation. Rev Psicol
Psicopatol Clin 2003;8(1):39-54. [in Spanish]
26. Riggs ML, Warka J, Babasa B, et al. Development and
validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
scales for job-related applications. Educ Psychol Meas
1994;54:793-802.
27. Alwin DF, Hauser RM. The decomposition of effects in
path analysis. Am Sociol Rev 1975;40:37-47.
28. Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping
strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1989;56(2):267.
29. Dwyer AL, Cummings AL. Stress, self-efficacy, social
support, and coping strategies in university students. Can
J Couns 2001;35(3):208-20.
30. Zajacova A, Lynch SM, Espenshade TJ. Self-efficacy,
stress, and academic success in college. Res Higher Educ
2005;46(6):677-706.
31. Palacio JE, Caballero CC, Gonzlez O, et al. Relation
between burnout and coping strategies with GPA in university students. Universitas Psychologica 2012;11(2):
535-44.