Content uploaded by Arie Cohen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arie Cohen on Jul 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
TEST ANXIETY AND ITS EFFECT
ON THE PERSONALITY OF STUDENTS WITH
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Dubi Lufi, Susan Okasha, and Arie Cohen
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to look for personality
variables that characterized young adults with learning dis-
abilities and test anxiety. Fifty-four Israeli adults diagnosed with
learning disabilities participated in the study, 24 of them were
diagnosed as having test anxiety; 30 did not have test anxiety. The
participants completed the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI) to
validate the diagnosis of test anxiety and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) to assess the differ-
ent personality profiles. The results showed significant differences
between the two groups on 35 out of 68 measures of the MMPI-2.
A discriminant-function analysis of the content scales, the supple-
mentary scales, and the Harris-Lingoes scales of the MMPI-2
showed that one measure, College Maladjustment, explained most
of the variance. Further analysis assessed the various test anxiety
profiles of the two types of test anxiety, “emotionality” and
“worry.” The meaning of the results is discussed as a basis for
explaining the profile of a student with learning disabilities and
test anxiety.
DUBI LUFI, Ph.D., is associate professor, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Emek Yizreel College, Israel.
SUSAN OKASHA, Emek Yizreel College, Israel.
ARIE COHEN is professor, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Anxiety is probably one of the most researched
human traits in recent years. Hundreds of articles have
been published on this topic in almost every profes-
sional journal. It is common to divide anxiety into two
domains: trait anxiety and state anxiety, a classification
first made by Spielberger (1972). Trait anxiety is an
individual tendency to perceive various situations as
dangerous and threatening. State anxiety, in turn, is the
perception of an emotional situation as unpleasant
accompanied by a physiological reaction connected
to the autonomic nervous system. Test anxiety, the
focus of this study, is one form of state anxiety.
Test Anxiety
Test anxiety affects people in every field of life, when-
ever people of all ages have to be evaluated, assessed,
and graded with regard to their abilities, achievements,
or interests. Birenbaum and Nasser (1994) claimed that
test anxiety has become one of the most disruptive fac-
tors in school and other settings where testing is per-
formed. It has been estimated that 30% of all students
suffer from various levels of test anxiety (Shaked, 1996).
Spielberger (1972) describes test anxious people as follows:
In essence, high test-anxious persons are character-
ized by acquired habits and attitudes that involve
Learning Disability Quarterly 176
negative self-perceptions and expectations. These
self-deprecating habits and attitudes dispose
test-anxious persons to experience fear and height-
ened physiological activity in situations such as
examinations in which they are being evaluated,
and influence the manner in which they interpret
and respond to events in the environment. (p. 14)
Other researchers have defined additional dimen-
sions of test anxiety. For example, Hong (1998) claimed
that test anxiety is “a complex multidimensional
construct involving cognitive, affective, physiological,
and behavioral reactions to evaluative situations”
(p. 51). Sarason (1984) divided test anxiety into the fol-
lowing four dimensions: worry, tension, test-irrelevant
thinking, and bodily symptoms. Liebert and Morris
(1967) used a two-dimensional conceptualization to
define test anxiety as consisting of two major elements:
worry and emotionality.
Using Liebert and Morris’ (1967) two-dimensional
construct, Spielberger and colleagues (1980) con-
structed their Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI). To date, the
TAI remains the most popular measure of test anxiety
used in clinical work and research. The TAI constructs
of worry and emotionality are defined as follows:
(a) “Worry” is cognitive distress connected to the test-
ing situation; it consists of negative performance
expectations or worry about the testing situation; and
(b) “Emotionality” is the affective dimension; it refers
to the physical reactions of students to the testing situ-
ation. Examples of such a reaction can be nervousness,
fear, and physical discomfort. In theory, these two
anxiety facets are independent even though they have
fairly high correlations (Deffenbacher, 1980; Morris,
Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). The TAI has been widely
discussed in the literature (e.g., Benson & Bandalos
1992; Nasser & Takahashi 1996; O’Neil & Fukumura,
1992; Zeidner & Nevo 1992).
In her cognitive-attentional theory of test anxiety,
Wine (1971, 1982) claimed that the negative influence
of test anxiety is due to the fact that test-anxious per-
sons divide their attention between personal variables
and variables connected to the task. In contrast, non-
test-anxious persons are able to focus their attention
more on the task itself. Among test-anxious students
these differences lead to a reduced ability to deal with
cognitive tasks.
Another model explaining the poor performance of
test-anxious students is the “deficit in study skills”
model (Paulman & Kennelly, 1984; Wittmaier, 1972).
This model views the low performance of test-anxious
students as stemming from their deficient knowledge
of the school material and their awareness that they are
not well prepared for the test. Test anxiety reduces the
performance of those who experience it (Sarason,
1980). In addition, it causes emotional suffering (Ben-
Dov, 1992).
A somewhat different viewpoint was presented by
Einat (2000), who claimed that severe test anxiety is
caused by high personal standards of persons who
expect maximum success and are afraid that they can-
not meet their own standards. It has been proven that
test-anxious students see the test situation as threaten-
ing, and often react by worrying and thinking irrele-
vant thoughts that interfere with effective performance
(Liebert & Morris, 1967; Tobias, 1985; Wine, 1982).
Additional findings concerning the negative effects of
test anxiety on large percentages of those placed in test-
ing situations may be found elsewhere (for a review,
see Hembree, 1988; Seipp, 1991).
The negative influence of test anxiety on school
performance is found already at a young age. For
example, Hill and Sarason (1966) reported that highly
test-anxious children were two years behind in basic
reading and arithmetic skills by the end of elementary
school, probably because of the test anxiety they
experienced. Plass and Hill (1986) claimed that high-
anxious children when tested under time pressure
often do the tests too quickly which, in turn, results in
low grades in standard testing conditions. Others have
found that test anxiety is associated with depressed aca-
demic performance (Bryan, Sonnefeld, & Grabowski,
1983; Guttman, 1987; Zatz & Chassin, 1985).
Learning Disabilities
Learning disabilities (LD) affect 2%-10% of the pop-
ulation (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-4th edition;
DSM-IV, 1994). Learning disabilities have been invest-
igated extensively in the areas of definition, diagnosis,
and treatment. Considerably less attention has been
given to the effect of LD on personality structure.
Johnson and Blalock (1987) found that adults with
LD had difficulties with self-concept and social accept-
ance. Similarly, various studies have shown that stu-
dents with LD have a negative self-concept (Write &
Stimmel, 1984), poor interpersonal skills (La Greca,
1987), and frail ego structures (Gaddes, 1985). Other
studies found various personality deficiencies in children
with LD, such as more external locus of control (Bendel,
Tollefson, & Fine, 1980; Hallahan, Gajar, Cohen, &
Tarver, 1978; Tarnowski & Nay, 1989; Tollefson, Tracy,
Johnson, & Borgers, 1979), and higher anxiety levels,
withdrawal, depression, low self-esteem, more rejection
by others, and fewer social skills (see review by Noel,
Hoy, King, Moreland, & Meera, 1992). Thus, it seems
that learning disabilities have a lifelong impact on the
personality of the children and adults they affect.
Only a few studies have used the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with its
Volume 27, Summer 2004 177
various versions to assess test anxiety. When Noel et al.
(1992) used the MMPI-2 to investigate the profile of
adults with LD, they raised the question of whether
there are any specific personality profiles for individu-
als with learning disabilities. They found that students
with LD in two settings – a rehabilitation setting and a
university – differed from the normative college popu-
lation in short- and long-term stress leading to anxiety.
In addition, each group of LD individuals had its
unique personality characteristics. Turner (1996) found
that anxiety measured by the Fears content scale of the
MMPI explained significantly measures of immediate
and delayed visual memory scores. In contrast, other
measures of anxiety did not explain a significant
amount of variance in various memory tasks. Similar
results were found by Cannon (1999), who discovered
that the Social Anxiety scale of the MMPI could predict
poor performance on specific logical memory task.
Test Anxiety and Learning Disabilities
Only a few studies have dealt with the combination
of test anxiety and learning disablities. Lancaster,
Mellard, and Hoffman (2001) reported that the greatest
difficulties of students with LD was test anxiety, along
with concentration, distraction, frustration, remem-
bering, and mathematics. Stevens (2001) found that
students with LD had higher levels of test anxiety com-
pared to non-LD students. These differences were
mainly in test-irrelevant thinking.
Different explanations of the connections between
test anxiety and LD were found by Swanson and Howell
(1996). In a study of 82 adolescents, these researchers
noted a significant positive relationship between test an-
xiety and cognitive interference and a significant nega-
tive relationship between test anxiety and study habits.
Based on these results, they claimed that cognitive inter-
ference was the most powerful predictor of test anxiety.
Various studies have attempted to reduce test anxiety
among students with LD. For example, Wachelha and
Katz (1999) tried to lower test anxiety levels in high
school and junior college students with LD. After eight
weeks of cognitive behavioral treat-ment their part-
icipants demonstrated reduced test anxiety levels and
improved study skills and academic self-esteem com-
pared to a control group. Their cognitive-behavioral
treatment included progressive muscle relaxation,
guided imagery, self-instruction training, and training
in study and test-taking skills.
A similar study with college students (Giordano,
2000) found that academic skills training improved
study skills but had mixed effects on anxious behaviors
and academic performance. In contrast, exposure ther-
apy decreased anxious behaviors and improved aca-
demic performance.
Despite such far-reaching personality implications,
this topic has not been investigated thoroughly
enough in the research literature; and despite the pop-
ularity of the topic of test anxiety among researchers
and the extensive attention given to the topic of learn-
ing disability, not much attention has been paid to
their combined effect on the personality of those who
suffer from them.
The purpose of the present study was to explore the
personality structure of a specific population of adults
who had both LD and test anxiety compared to a popu-
lation of other adults with LD but no test anxiety.
METHOD
Participants
Fifty-four Israeli adults, 31 men and 23 women, who
were first-year students or planned to attend institu-
tions of higher education in the near future, partici-
pated in this study. The participants were self-referred
for assessment of LD because of difficulties in the past
and/or the present. Each had received a diagnosis of LD
according to the DSM-IV (1994) in one or more of three
categories: dyslexia, dysgraphia or dyscalculus.
Twenty-four of the subjects (mean age 23.19) were
also diagnosed as having test anxiety based on self-
reports. The symptoms described by these subjects
included apprehension in testing situations, tension
and anxiety prior to examination, difficulties falling
asleep or eating before an important test, pressure dur-
ing tests, and sweating or various pains during tests.
Thirty of the participants (mean age 24.05) did not
have test anxiety. The groups did not differ in age or
intellectual ability as measured by the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R, 1981).
MATERIALS
All the subjects filled out two questionnaires. First
they completed the TAI, Test Anxiety Inventory
(Spielberger et al., 1980), which was translated into
Hebrew and standardized for the Israeli population
by Zeidner and Nevo (1988). The TAI is a self-report
measure of test anxiety that uses a Likert-like 4-point
scale (from 1 = almost never, to 4 = almost always)
aimed at measuring test anxiety as a “situation-specific
personality trait” (Spielberger et al., 1980). The ques-
tionnaire includes 20 items. It yields an overall score,
as well as scores for the “worry” and “emotionality”
components of test anxiety.
The second questionnaire used was the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Version 2, MMPI-2
(Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer,
1989). This is an updated version of the MMPI, which is
one of the most frequently used personality tests in the
history of testing (Lubin, Larson, Matarazzo, & Seever,
Learning Disability Quarterly 178
Volume 27, Summer 2004 179
1985). The MMPI-2 has been extensively used in research
with various populations (see review by Noel et al., 1992).
The MMPI-2 includes 567 items answered true or
false. The test has 10 clinical scales, 6 validity scales, 15
content scales, 15 supplementary scales, and 28 Harris-
Lingoes scales. The test has been translated into Hebrew
and was found to be useful for the Israeli population by
Almagor, Budesco, Nevo, and Montag (1993).
Design and Procedure
The assessment was carried out by a licensed and
experienced clinical psychologist who specializes in
testing. At the beginning of the meeting with the sub-
jects, a thorough interview was conducted, asking
about personal background, school history, and infor-
mation about learning difficulties and test anxiety. This
clinical evaluation based on self-reports was used to
diagnose the subjects as having test anxiety (placed in
the “high test-anxious group” – HTAG) or not having
test-anxiety (placed in the “non-test-anxious group” –
NTAG). The criteria used for diagnosis of test anxiety
were based on the diagnostic criteria for social phobia
described by the DSM-IV (1994). (In the DSM-IV test
anxiety is categorized under social phobia.)
At the end of the interview an assessment of learning
difficulties was performed, which determined if partic-
ipants had learning disabilities and the type. The diag-
nosis of learning disabilities was based on the criteria of
the DSM-IV (1994) calling for two standard deviations
between achievement and IQ, or in some cases a
smaller discrepancy – between one and two standard
deviations – as specified by the manual. A Hebrew ver-
sion of the WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981) was used to assess
IQ, while other specific measures of reading, writing,
and arithmetic were used to assess the specific learning
disability of each participant. Three participants who
were not diagnosed as having LD were excluded from
the study.
At the end of this part of the assessment, the follow-
ing questionnaires were administered: (a) TAI and
(b) MMPI-2. The reason the clinical interview was used
for the diagnosis of test anxiety was to allow the re-
searchers to use the TAI for additional analysis, not
only for the selection procedure. Also, the TAI was used
to further validate the existence or non-existence of
test anxiety among the two groups.
RESULTS
The high-test-anxious group (HTAG) and the non-test-
anxious group (NTAG) were compared on age, total IQ,
Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and the TAI and its two
submeasures (Worry and Emotionality). The results
showed significant differences on Verbal IQ and, as
expected, on all three measures of the TAI. These
results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Age, IQ, and Test Anxiety Inventory of the Test-Anxious
LD Group (N = 24) Compared to the Non-Test-Anxious LD Group (N = 30)
Test-Anxious Group Non-Test-Anxious Group
Variable Mean SD Mean SD t
Age 23.19 1.83 24.05 2.99 1.43
Total IQ 91.57 8.01 95.89 7.52 1.96
Verbal IQ 91.13 9.61 99.93 7.46 3.22**
Performance IQ 94.14 9.84 94.14 10.51 1.06
TAI
Emotionality 28.17 2.87 18.40 5.13 8.84***
Worry 23.79 3.32 14.53 4.13 8.91***
Total 64.33 5.71 40.40 9.56 11.41***
Note. TAI = Test Anxiety Inventory.
* p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001.
Assessment of the MMPI-2 and its measures using
t-tests was carried out to compare the two groups (using
an overall plevel of 0.05; a Bonferroni procedure was
used to control for experiment-wise Type I error, yield-
ing pof 0.001 for each individual t-test). The compari-
son showed significant differences in 35 out of 68
measures of the MMPI-2 (4 out of the 10 clinical scales,
7 out of 15 content scales, 7 out of the 15 supplemen-
tary scales, and 17 out of 28 of the Harris-Lingoes
scales). The results of a comparison of the two groups
on the most important measures of the MMPI, the 10
clinical scales of the MMPI-2, are shown in Table 2.
The most important measures separating the two
groups were determined by using a stepwise discrimi-
nant-function analysis (a stepwise discriminant func-
tion with Bonferroni procedure was used to avoid
increased type I error rate due to many variable
used in the analysis). The analysis of the content
scales, the supplementary scales, and the Harris-
Lingoes scales (without the 10 clinical scales) showed
that one scale could explain most of the variance
between the HTAG and the NTAG, College Maladjust-
ment (MT). Specifically, the discriminant function
could differentiate between the two groups with 79.6%
accuracy.
The next assessment consisted of comparing the
HTAG and the NTAG to the population mean of the
MMPI-2 clinical scales. Only one clinical scale in the
HTAG, Scale 7, Psychasthenia (Pt), was above the clini-
cal level considered significantly high (t-score of 65);
this was true for both males and females. This compar-
ison is shown in Table 3.
One intriging issue in test anxiety relates to the
unique relationships between MMPI-2 variables and
the aspect of “emotionality” versus “worry.” This issue
was explored by employing a stepwise regression where
the “emotionality” subscale was used as the dependent
variable whereas the “worry” subscale was introduced
as the forced variable in the first block of the stepwise
regression, with the MMPI-2 clinical scales following
in a stepwise manner in a second block.
This analysis indicated that the depression subscale
explained an additional 5.7% of the variance of
“emotionality” beyond the 58% of the common vari-
ance between the “emotionality” subscale and the
“worry” subscale. In contrast, when the position of
Learning Disability Quarterly 180
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of MMPI-2 Results of the High-Test-Anxious LD Group
(N = 24) Compared to the Non-Test-Anxious LD Group (N = 30)
High-Test-Anxious Group Non-Test-Anxious Group
Variable Mean SD Mean SD t1
MMPI-2
Hypochondriasis 16.96 4.20 16.10 3.90 .78
Depression 25.04 4.53 20.93 4.04 3.52*
Hysteria 24.33 3.41 24.73 4.84 .34
Psychopathic Deviate 26.46 4.97 23.37 3.97 2.60
Masculinity-Femininity 31.29 5.41 28.47 5.51 1.89
Paranoia 13.21 3.48 10.97 2.30 2.72
Psychasthenia 35.83 6.27 29.33 4.29 4.29**
Schizophrenia 34.21 5.76 28.93 5.09 3.57*
Hypomania 22.92 4.58 20.03 3.55 2.61
Social Introversion 33.00 7.55 26.03 6.79 3.56*
1The Bonferroni procedure was used to control for Type 1 error.
* p< .05. ** p< .01.
Volume 27, Summer 2004 181
emotionality and worry were reversed, and worry was
used as the dependent variable, the MMPI-2 clinical
scales did not contribute any additional explained vari-
ance of the worry subscale over the emotionality sub-
scale. In other words, the addition of the MMPI-2
subscale of depression explained 5.7% of the emotion-
ality factor in test anxiety, which is unrelated to the
worry aspect of test anxiety.
DISCUSSION
The results showed many differences between the
two groups. The clear differences on the measures of
test anxiety are logical since test anxiety was used to
separate the two groups. The significant differences
in Verbal IQ can be explained in one of two ways:
(a) as found in previous studies, test anxiety causes
lower academic performance (Bryan et al., 1983;
Guttman, 1987; Zatz & Chassin, 1985); and (b) emo-
tional difficulties experienced by the HTAG has a neg-
ative effect on the verbal ability of those who suffer
from test anxiety.
A significant difference found on many measures of
the MMPI-2 requires serious attention. The fact that
among the clinical scales of the MMPI-2, 4 out of 10
showed significant differences indicates that LD stu-
dents with test anxiety (HTAG) had higher levels of
psychopathology. In other measures of the MMPI-2,
there were also significant differences, with 31 out of
the 58 additional measures showing higher levels of
various difficulties in the HTAG. It was not expected
that the two groups would differ in so many patholog-
ical and personality measures.
The clinical meaning of each of the four MMPI-2
clinical measures found to differentiate between the
two groups is based on four clinical measures. Scale 7
(Psychasthenia) was aimed at measuring symptoms
similar to those of clients with an obsessive-compulsive
disorder. Graham (1990) described individuals with
high scores on Scale 7 as “tend to be very anxious,
tense, and agitated. They worry a great deal, even over
very small problems, and they are fearful and appre-
hensive. High-strung and jumpy, they report difficul-
ties in concentrating and often receive anxiety disorder
diagnoses” (p. 74).
Individuals with high scores on Scale 2 (Depression)
are described as having depressive symptoms, feel
Table 3
Means of Raw Scores of MMPI-2 Results of the High-Test-Anxious LD Group (N = 24),
the Non-Test-Anxious LD Group (N = 30), and Population Norm
High-Test-Anxious Non-Test-Anxious Population Norm
Variable Group Mean Group Mean Mean Males Mean Females
MMPI-2
Hypochondriasis 16.96 16.10 12.67 13.50
Depression 25.04 20.93 18.00 20.50
Hysteria 24.33 24.73 21.00 22.50
Psychopathic Deviate 26.46 23.37 23.00 22.50
Masculinity-Femininity 31.29 28.47 26.00 36.00
Paranoia 13.21 10.97 10.25 10.33
Psychasthenia 35.83a,b 29.33 26.50 27.50
Schizophrenia 34.21 28.93 26.50 27.50
Hypomania 22.92 20.03 20.50 19.50
Social Introversion 33.00 26.03 25.50 28.00
aRaw score is higher than T-score of 65 of male norm.
bRaw score is higher than T-score of 65 of female norm.
unhappy, blue, dysphoric, and pessimistic. They have
self-deprecatory and guilt feelings, often cry, show psy-
chomotor retardation, and refuse to speak. They tend
to be agitated and tense (Graham, 1990).
Individuals who score high on Scale 8 (Schizo-
phrenia) may have psychotic disorder, and can be
disorganized, confused, and disoriented. Often they
report unusual thoughts or hallucinations, or attitudes.
In addition, they may have poor judgment and live
a schizoid life-style (Graham, 1990).
Finally, Scale 0 (Social Introversion) was constructed
to assess clients’ tendency to withdraw from responsi-
bilities and social contacts. Individuals with high scores
on this scale were described by Graham (1990) as
very insecure and uncomfortable in social situa-
tions. They tend to be shy, reserved, timid, and re-
tiring. They feel more comfortable when alone
or with a few close friends, and they do not partic-
ipate in many social activities. They may be espe-
cially uncomfortable around members of the
opposite sex. (p. 83)
The clinical explanation of the measure of College
Maladjustment (MT), which was found to differentiate
79.6% of the subjects in the two groups, is as follows:
high MT scores among college students is indicative
of individuals who are ineffectual, pessimistic, anx-
ious and worried, and who procrastinate, somatize,
and feel that life is a strain much of the time. In con-
trast, those who score low on MT are described as opti-
mistic, conscientious, and feeling relatively free of
emotional discomfort (Graham, 1990). It is possible
that the components of College Maladjustment serve
as the main reasons for the difficulties of students who
suffer from test anxiety. Therefore, reducing these
problematic thoughts, feelings, and behaviors may
decrease anxiety and improve optimism and construc-
tive behaviors.
A possible explanation for these findings may be
found in the fact that study participants had debilitat-
ing conditions: learning disabilities and test anxiety.
This combination is presumably the important factor
in creating higher levels of psychopathology as indi-
cated by the personality profile of the HTAG. That is,
learning disability causes feelings of failure, low self-
esteem and inferiority. Test anxiety adds another
dimension of not being able to deal with testing situa-
tions and presumably leads to additional corrosion
of the student’s self-esteem. This combination creates
a situation in which the person has difficulties dealing
with academic material; if he or she succeeds in typi-
cal class situations after a great deal of effort, even
then he or she will likely be unable to perform ade-
quately on tests, which is the only way to attain success
in many academic settings. It seems that this com-
orbidity has an extremely significant influence on
personality, to such an extent that in 35 out of 68
measures of the MMPI-2, the HTAG was showing more
pathology. Another possibility is that for the com-
bination of these two problems we have to create a new
model explaining the poor performance in school,
based on emotional problems as indicated by the
findings of the present study.
The finding that Scale 7 (Psychasthenia) was in the
significant range of the clinical level indicates a com-
ponent of generalized anxiety within test anxiety.
Perhaps test anxiety is not only a form of state anxiety,
but also includes important trait anxiety components.
Another possibility is that we need to form new terms
of “trait test anxiety” and “state test anxiety.” These
are assumptions that have to be assessed further.
Implications for Practice
The attempt to explain the two different test anxiety
profiles with personality structure found in the MMPI-
2 showed a unique relationships between the MMPI-2
depression scale and the emotional element in test
anxiety. It suggests that this element in test anxiety
is distressing and relates more to the pathological
characteristics of the student, as characterized by a
high score on depression. The emotional factor of the
TAI is the affective dimension; therefore, it is logical
that those who are high on the affective dimension
are more prone to be depressed as an emotional reac-
tion to test anxious situations. In contrast, those with
high “worry” scores on the TAI – the cognitive compo-
nent – are less prone to experience depressive feelings
as a reaction to test anxious situations. Perhaps these
two types of test-anxious subjects need different treat-
ment modalities based on the type of personality asso-
ciated with each type of test anxiety. This assumption
should be tested further in future research.
Finally, the findings presented here stress the need
to assess further the influence of these two disabilities
on students’ personality. More assessment using a
wider variety of research tools should improve our
understanding of this problem. One additional inter-
esting line of research would be to explore which
aspects of depression relate to the unique emotional
component of test anxiety. The findings of the present
study also point to the need for specialized treatment
for this population in order to allow them to function
more effectively in an academic program.
REFERENCES
Almagor, M., Budesco, D., Nevo, B., & Montag, I. (1994). The
Israeli MMPI-2. News & Profiles, 5, 4.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Learning Disability Quarterly 182
Volume 27, Summer 2004 183
Bendel, D., Tollefson, N., & Fine, M. (1980). Interaction of locus-
of-control orientation and the performance of learning dis-
abled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 32-35.
Ben-Dov (1992). Social skills and loneliness among adolescents with
and without learning disabilities in the kibbutz and the city
(Hebrew). Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel-Aviv University,
Israel.
Benson, J., & Bandalos D. L. (1992). Second-order confirmatory
factor analysis of the Reactions to Tests scale with cross-valida-
tion. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 459-487.
Birenbaum, M., & Nasser, F. (1994). On the relationship between
test anxiety and test performance. Measurement & Evaluation in
Counseling & Development, 27, 293-302.
Bryan, J. H., Sonnefeld, L. J., & Grabowski, B. (1983). The rela-
tionship between fear of failure and learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 217-222.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., &
Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI-2). Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Cannon, B. J. (1999). Relative interference on Logical Memory I
Story A versus Story B of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised in
a clinical sample. Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 178-180.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxi-
ety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and
application (pp. 111-128). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einat, A. (2000). Learning disabilties – The challenge (in Hebrew).
Tel Aviv, Israel: Reches Publishers, Educational Projects.
Gaddes, W. H. (1985). Learning disabilities and brain function: A
neuropsychological approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Giordano, L. A. (2000). Effects of test anxiety in control training
on anxious behaviors and academic performance in college
students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstract Inter-
national, 60, 4196.
Graham, J. R. (1990). MMPI-2 assessing personality and psy-
chopathology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Guttman, J. (1987). Test anxiety and performance of adolescent
children of divorced parents. Educational Psychology, 7, 225-229.
Hallahan, D. P., Gajar, A. H., Cohen, S. B., & Tarver, S. G. (1978).
Selective attention and locus of control in learning disabled
and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 47-52.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of
test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.
Hill, K. T., & Sarason, S. B. (1966). The relation of test anxiety and
defensiveness to test and school performance over the elemen-
tary school years: A further longitudinal study. Monograph of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 31, (Whole No. 2).
Hong, E. (1998). Differential stability of individual differences in
state and trait test anxiety. Learning & Individual Differences, 10,
51-70.
Johnson, D. J., & Blalock, J. (1987). Adults with learning disabilities.
Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.
La Greca, A. M. (1987). Children with learning disabilities:
Interpersonal skills and social competence. Journal of Reading,
Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 3, 167-185.
Lancaster, S., Mellard, D., & Hoffman, L. (2001). Experiences of stu-
dents with disabilities in selected community and technical colleges.
The individual accommodation model: Accommodating students
with disabilities in postsecondary settings. Lawrence: University of
Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.
Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional
components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data.
Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
Lubin, B., Larson, R. M., Matarazzo, J. D., & Seever, M. (1985).
Psychological test usage patterns in five professional settings.
American Psychologist, 40, 857-861.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. J. (1981). Cognitive
and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a
revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73, 541-555.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi T. (1996). An application of confirmatory
factor analysis with item parcels for testing the structure of test anx-
iety among Israeli-Arab high school students. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement
in Education, New York.
Noel, G., Hoy, C., King, M., Moreland, C., & Meera, J. (1992). The
MMPI-2 profile of adults with learning disabilities in university
and rehabilitation settings. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,
386-395.
O’Neil, H. F., & Fukumura T. (1992). Relationship of worry and
emotionality to test performance in the Juku environment.
Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 5, 241-251.
Paulman, R. G., & Kennelly, K. J. (1984). Test anxiety and inef-
fective test taking: Different names, same construct. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 279-288.
Plass, J., & Hill, K. T. (1986). Children’s achievement strategies
and test performance: The role of time pressure, evaluation
anxiety, and sex. Developmental Psychology, 22, 31-36.
Sarason, I. G. (1980). Test anxiety: Theory, research and applications.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference:
Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
929-938.
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-
analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27-41.
Shaked, Y. (1996, September 30). During the test I am in a shock.
Marive (Israeli daily newspaper), A1, p. 6-7.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Current trends in theory and research
on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety, current trends in
theory and research. New York and London: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gonzales, H. P., Taylor, C. J., Anton, W. D.,
Algaze, B., Ross, G. K., & Westberry, L. G. (1980). Test Anxiety
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stevens, S. A. (2001). Test anxiety and beliefs about testing in col-
lege students with and without learning disabilities.
Dissertation Abstracts Internatioal, 61, 7-A.
Swanson, S., & Howell, C. C. (1996). Test anxiety in adolescents
with learning disabilities and behavior disorder. Exceptional
Children, 62, 389-397.
Tarnowski, K. J., & Nay, S. M. (1989). Locus of control in children
with learning disabilities and hyperactivity: A subgroup analy-
sis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 381-384.
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills and
cognitive capacity. Educational Psychologist, 50, 343-373.
Tollefson, N., Tracy, D. B., Johnson, E. P., & Borgers, S. (1979).
An application of attribution theory to self-concept development
of learning disabled adolescents (Technical Report). Lawrence:
University of Kansas, Institute for Research on Learning
Disabilities.
Turner, D. E. (1996). The effects of anxiety on digit span and
memory test performance. Dissertation Abstract International,
57, 3428.
Wachelka, D., & Katz, R. C. (1999). Reducing test anxiety and
improving academic self-esteem in high school and college stu-
dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 191-198.
Wine, J. D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention.
Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104.
Wine, J. D. (1982). Evaluation anxiety: A cognitive-attentional
construct. In H. W. Krohne & L. Laux, Achievement, stress and
anxiety (pp. 207-219). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New
York: Psychological Corporation.
Wittmaier, B. (1972). Test anxiety and study habits. Journal of
Educational Research, 65, 852-854.
Write, L. S., & Stimmel, T. (1984). Perceptions of parents and self
among college students reporting learning disabilities. The
Exceptional Child, 31, 203-208.
Zatz, S., & Chassin, L. (1985). Cognitions of test-anxious children
under naturalistic test-taking conditions. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 53, 393-401.
Zeidner, M., & Nevo, B. (1988). Test Anxiety Inventory, Hebrew
Version, instructions to the user. The University of Haifa.
Zeidner, M., & Nevo, B. (1992). Test anxiety in examinees in a
college admission-testing situation: Incidence, dimensionality,
and cognitive correlates. In Advances in Test Anxiety Research
(Vol. 7), Series edited by H. M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer,
& C. D. Spielberger. Volume edited by K. A. Hagtvet & T. B.
Johnson (pp. 288-303). Amsterdam /Lisse, The Netherlands:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
NOTES
We thank Jim Parish-Plass, Ph.D., for his assistance and editorial
comments.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dubi Lufi, Kibbutz
Yifat 30069, Israel; dubi_lupi@yifat.org.il
Learning Disability Quarterly 184
Visit CLD’s website
www.cldinternational.org
