Using latent profile analysis to uncover the combined role of anxiety sensitivity and test anxiety in students' state anxiety.
anxiety sensitivity
latent profile analysis
school
state anxiety
students
test anxiety
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
09
2022
accepted:
30
11
2022
entrez:
9
1
2023
pubmed:
10
1
2023
medline:
10
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studies report a growing tendency for students to experience state anxiety in schools. However, the combination of individual susceptibilities likely to trigger students' anxious states remains unclear. This study examined whether distinct profiles of students emerge regarding their susceptibility to anxiety sensitivity and/or test anxiety and evaluated whether students' profile predicted anxious states. We also verified whether susceptibility profiles varied across gender, school level, and school type. In total, 1,404 Canadian students in Grades 5 and 10 (589 boys; Latent profile analyses identified four susceptibility profiles: (1) Double-susceptibility: highest anxiety sensitivity and test anxiety scores; (2) Unique-susceptibility to test anxiety: high test anxiety score and low anxiety sensitivity score; (3) Unique-susceptibility to anxiety sensitivity: high anxiety sensitivity score and low test anxiety score; and (4) No-susceptibility: lowest anxiety sensitivity and test anxiety scores. The profiles comprised 12, 9, 6, and 73% of the sample, respectively, and their membership varied across gender and school type, but not across school levels. A linear mixed-effect model showed that state anxiety varied significantly between profiles, where the Double-susceptibility profile predicted the highest state anxiety scores, followed by the two Unique-susceptibility profiles (indifferently), and the No-susceptibility profile. Beyond their theoretical contribution to the state-trait anxiety literature, these findings suggest that selective interventions designed more specifically for students with the Double-susceptibility profile may be worthwhile. Results also highlight the high proportion of students with the No-susceptibility profile and shed light on the reassuring portrait regarding students' anxiety.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Studies report a growing tendency for students to experience state anxiety in schools. However, the combination of individual susceptibilities likely to trigger students' anxious states remains unclear.
Aims
UNASSIGNED
This study examined whether distinct profiles of students emerge regarding their susceptibility to anxiety sensitivity and/or test anxiety and evaluated whether students' profile predicted anxious states. We also verified whether susceptibility profiles varied across gender, school level, and school type.
Sample and methods
UNASSIGNED
In total, 1,404 Canadian students in Grades 5 and 10 (589 boys;
Results
UNASSIGNED
Latent profile analyses identified four susceptibility profiles: (1) Double-susceptibility: highest anxiety sensitivity and test anxiety scores; (2) Unique-susceptibility to test anxiety: high test anxiety score and low anxiety sensitivity score; (3) Unique-susceptibility to anxiety sensitivity: high anxiety sensitivity score and low test anxiety score; and (4) No-susceptibility: lowest anxiety sensitivity and test anxiety scores. The profiles comprised 12, 9, 6, and 73% of the sample, respectively, and their membership varied across gender and school type, but not across school levels. A linear mixed-effect model showed that state anxiety varied significantly between profiles, where the Double-susceptibility profile predicted the highest state anxiety scores, followed by the two Unique-susceptibility profiles (indifferently), and the No-susceptibility profile.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Beyond their theoretical contribution to the state-trait anxiety literature, these findings suggest that selective interventions designed more specifically for students with the Double-susceptibility profile may be worthwhile. Results also highlight the high proportion of students with the No-susceptibility profile and shed light on the reassuring portrait regarding students' anxiety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36619097
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035494
pmc: PMC9811949
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1035494Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Journault, Plante, Charbonneau, Sauvageau, Longpré, Giguère, Labonté, Roger, Cernik, Chaffee, Dumont, Labelle and Lupien.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Educ Psychol. 2007 Sep;77(Pt 3):579-93
pubmed: 17908376
Psychol Rev. 1989 Jan;96(1):84-100
pubmed: 2538855
New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2021 Jan;2021(175):111-139
pubmed: 33634554
Child Dev Perspect. 2016 Mar;10(1):59-64
pubmed: 31844424
J Sch Psychol. 2010 Feb;48(1):5-37
pubmed: 20006986
Emotion. 2020 Feb;20(1):120-125
pubmed: 31961190
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2009 Sep;32(3):483-524
pubmed: 19716988
Nature. 2022 Jul;607(7919):512-520
pubmed: 35794485
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2003 Mar;44(3):399-411
pubmed: 12635969
Stress. 2015 Jan;18(1):138-42
pubmed: 25407296
J Affect Disord. 2018 Feb;227:483-493
pubmed: 29156362
Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2017 Jul-Sep;39(3):147-157
pubmed: 28813110
Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Apr;29(3):208-15
pubmed: 19232805
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020 Dec;41:28-39
pubmed: 33162291
Restor Dent Endod. 2013 Feb;38(1):52-4
pubmed: 23495371
J Anxiety Disord. 1997 Mar-Apr;11(2):201-14
pubmed: 9168342
J Sch Psychol. 2019 Apr;73:56-73
pubmed: 30961881
Dev Psychopathol. 2016 May;28(2):459-69
pubmed: 27063894
J Clin Child Psychol. 1999 Mar;28(1):105-12
pubmed: 10070611
Br J Educ Psychol. 2013 Dec;83(Pt 4):535-49
pubmed: 24175681
J Abnorm Psychol. 1989 May;98(2):193-4
pubmed: 2708664
J Anxiety Disord. 2014 Mar;28(2):266-75
pubmed: 24534564
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Jun;60(6):919-26
pubmed: 1865327
Psychol Rep. 1967 Jun;20(3):975-8
pubmed: 6042522
Can J Nurs Res. 2003 Jun;35(2):127-42
pubmed: 12908201
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):691-705
pubmed: 18999361
Anxiety Stress Coping. 2019 Mar;32(2):155-167
pubmed: 30465445
J Anxiety Disord. 2010 Jan;24(1):23-9
pubmed: 19713072
J Anxiety Disord. 2004;18(5):695-706
pubmed: 15275947
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 28;12(3):e0174418
pubmed: 28350857
Behav Res Ther. 2001 Jan;39(1):89-100
pubmed: 11125726
J Sch Psychol. 2021 Oct;88:47-67
pubmed: 34625210
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Feb 26;250:112890
pubmed: 32143086
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Dec;82:101928
pubmed: 33091745
Malays J Med Sci. 2008 Apr;15(2):18-23
pubmed: 22589620
Br J Educ Psychol. 2022 Sep;92(3):1068-1085
pubmed: 35170029
Behav Res Ther. 1986;24(1):1-8
pubmed: 3947307