Psychological Bulletin

Manuscript version of

A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between Math Anxiety and Math Achievement

Connie Barroso, Colleen M. Ganley, Amanda L. McGraw, Elyssa A. Geer, Sara A. Hart, Mia C. Daucourt

Funded by:
• National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
• US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences

© 2020, American Psychological Association. This manuscript is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission.
The final version of record is available via its DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000307

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
 Abstract

Meta-analyses from the 1990s have previously established a significant, small-to-

moderate, and negative correlation between math achievement and math anxiety. Since these

publications, research has continued to investigate this relation with more diverse samples and

measures. Thus, the goal of the present meta-analysis was to provide an update of the math

anxiety-math achievement relation and its moderators. Analyzing 747 effect sizes accumulated

from research conducted between 1992 and 2018, we found a small-to-moderate, negative, and

statistically significant correlation (r = -.28) between math anxiety and math achievement. The

relation was significant for all moderator subgroups, with the exception of the relation between

math anxiety and assessments measuring the approximate number system. Grade level, math

ability level, adolescent/adult math anxiety scales, math topic of anxiety scale, and math

assessments were significant moderators of this relation. There is also a tendency for published

studies to report significantly stronger correlations than unpublished studies but, overall, large,

negative effect sizes are under-reported. Our results are consistent with previous findings of a

significant relation between math anxiety and math achievement. This association starts in

childhood, remains significant through adulthood, is smaller for students in grades 3 through 5

and postsecondary school, is larger for math anxiety than for statistics anxiety and for certain

math anxiety scales, and is smaller for math exam grades and samples selected for low math

ability. This work supports future research efforts to determine effective math achievement and

math anxiety interventions, which may be most helpful to implement during childhood.

Keywords: meta-analysis, math anxiety, math achievement, grade level

1
Public Significance Statement: The present meta-analysis finds a robust association between

math anxiety and math achievement, indicating that people who report higher feelings of anxiety

towards math tend to have lower math achievement. The relation is weaker for people at certain

grade levels (grades 3 through 5 and college students), depends on the scales used to measure

math anxiety, is stronger for math anxiety compared to statistics anxiety, and is weaker for math

exam grades and for low math ability samples. Math anxiety is experienced by many individuals

throughout development. Its association with math achievement makes this relation an important

factor to consider for improving math experiences, academic outcomes, and STEM career

participation.

2
 A Meta-analysis of the Relation Between Math Anxiety and Math Achievement

Research aimed at understanding how to improve achievement in mathematics has long

been stimulated by the importance of its use in everyday life (OECD, 1999). More recently, a

clear national and international priority has been made to increase engagement in fields that

require strong mathematics skills, such as fields in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM; Corbett & Hill, 2015; Olson & Riordan, 2012). Despite this importance,

recent work has shown declines in math achievement in students across the globe (Gottfried,

Marcoulides, Gottfried, Oliver, & Guerin, 2007; Kastberg, Chan, & Murray, 2016; Wijsman,

Warrens, Saab, Van Driel, & Westenberg, 2016). For example, the 2015 Program for

International Student Assessments (PISA) report found a significant decline from 2012 to 2015

in the average 15-year-old students’ math achievement scores from at least a third of countries

sampled, including the United States, China (i.e., Hong Kong), and Brazil (OECD, 2016). In

light of this decline, it is imperative to continue to work to understand the nature of math

achievement and associated factors.

Negative affect related to math has been a critical focus of the research aimed at

understanding how to increase math knowledge (Aiken, 1970; Foley et al., 2017; McLeod,

1994). One affective factor that has been found to play a central role in math achievement is

math anxiety, defined as the fear and worry related to math stimuli and situations (Ashcraft,

2002; Richardson & Suinn, 1972). Meta-analyses investigating the relation between math

anxiety and math achievement from the 1990s highlight the primacy of this relation; both

Hembree’s (1990) and Ma’s (1999) statistical analyses of the strength of the association found

significant small-to-moderate negative associations between math anxiety and math achievement

(Hembree: rs ranged from -.25 to -.40; Ma: r = -.27). Overall, aggregated evidence from these

3
two meta-analyses suggest that many students with higher levels of math anxiety tend to also

have lower levels of math achievement.

Over the past twenty years since the last of these statistical reviews, research studying the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement has continued to flourish. A closer look at

these previous meta-analyses, along with publications that have surfaced since their release,

reveals that there are specific questions that need to be clarified surrounding the nature of the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement. For example, although recent work has

been conducted with different age groups, it is unclear whether the relation is consistently

evident in student populations younger than grade 4 (Ganley & McGraw, 2016; Harari, Vukovic,

& Bailey, 2013) or in non-student adult populations (Hart & Ganley, 2018). The scope of recent

research has become more nuanced with regard to the demographics of samples studied and

measures used to assess math anxiety and math achievement. As such, a synthesis of this work

can provide a clearer picture of the magnitude of the relation, particularly for complexities of the

relation that remain unclear.

There were two aims for the present study. The primary aim was to conduct a meta-

analysis that takes into account the surge of research that has occurred since Ma’s (1999) meta-

analysis on the overall association between math anxiety and math achievement. The secondary

aim was to investigate whether this relation is moderated by certain factors. Specifically, we

examined whether sample demographic characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, continent, or

grade level moderated the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. We also

examined whether teachers or samples selected for low math ability had differential relations

compared to non-teacher samples and samples not selected for low math ability. Finally, we

examined whether measure characteristics, such as the types of measures used to assess math

4
anxiety and math achievement or the content area assessed by the math assessment, moderated

the relation.

Importance of Math Anxiety and Math Achievement

Math anxiety and math achievement have both been theorized to be important correlates

of educational and career outcomes (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). High levels of math anxiety as

well as low math achievement and beliefs about math ability early in development have been

found to significantly relate to avoidance of later educational opportunities in math (Espino,

Pereda, Recon, Perculeza, & Umali, 2017; Hembree, 1990; Hurst & Cordes, 2017; Meece,

Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990). Math anxiety has also been found to relate to the adoption of

achievement goal types that are linked with reduced content mastery, such as performance-

avoidance and mastery-avoidance goal orientations (Gonzalez-DeHass, Furner, Vásquez-Colina,

& Morris, 2017). Furthermore, math anxiety and math achievement have been associated,

separately, with high school and college career interests and choices in STEM fields (Ahmed,

2018; Lauermann, Chow, & Eccles, 2015; Watt, et al., 2017). For example, one study found that

students who had consistently low or decreasing math anxiety from middle school through high

school were more likely to choose STEM majors during postsecondary education than were

students with consistently high or increasing math anxiety from middle to high school (Ahmed,

2018).

Throughout development, math anxiety and math achievement guide people down

pathways that lead to different learning outcomes, educational pursuits, and career choices.

Despite the importance of math anxiety and math achievement in shaping these pathways,

inequities in these factors have been reported for certain groups, including females, people of

racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, and students with learning disabilities (Catsambis, 1994;

5
Devine et al., 2012; Dowker, Sarkar, & Looi, 2016; Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Fan, Chen,

& Matsumoto, 1997; Hall, Davis, Bolen, & Chia, 1999; Sonnenschein & Galindo, 2015; Suárez-

Pellicioni, Núñez-Peña, & Colomé, 2016). For example, some evidence suggests a greater

tendency for females to self-report high levels of math anxiety compared to males (Devine,

Fawcett, Szűcs, & Dowker, 2012; Hart & Ganley, 2018; Wigfield & Meece, 1988). Regarding

math achievement, other work has found gender differences that vary in direction of math

performance levels. Some findings have suggested that boys have lower math achievement and

other findings have suggested the same for girls, with many of the differences in findings

between studies primarily depending on the measure of math achievement used, age of sample,

and ability level of students (Cimpian, Lubienski, Timmer, Makowski, & Miller, 2016; Voyer &

Voyer, 2014). As another example of group inequities, some studies have found that samples of

African American students achieve lower math scores compared to samples of mostly European

American students (Else-Quest, Mineo, & Higgins, 2013; Hall et al., 1999; Sonnenschein &

Galindo, 2015), although socioeconomic status may explain these racial and ethnic differences

(Lubienski, 2002). Given that math anxiety and math achievement are instrumental in

understanding a person’s academic and career choices, it is important to understand whether

group inequities found in math anxiety and math achievement, separately, are also prevalent in

their relation. In the case where there is a stronger relation between math anxiety and math

achievement for certain groups that also tend to have lower achievement or higher anxiety, these

groups would be most in need of targeted interventions to reduce math anxiety or improve math

skills in order to minimize negative academic-related outcomes.

6
Math Anxiety-Math Achievement Link

Numerous theories have been posited to explain the negative relation between math

anxiety and math achievement, with much of the initial work rooted in theories derived from the

general anxiety and test anxiety literatures (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Liebert & Morris, 1967;

Wine, 1971) and adapted to accommodate the math-specific context. The primary theories

explaining the anxiety-performance relation are described briefly below (for detailed reviews,

see Beilock & Maloney, 2015, Carey, Hill, Devine, & Szucs, 2016, or Foley et al., 2017).

One major theory explaining the anxiety-performance link is the processing efficiency

theory. In this theory, cognitive worry interferes with cognitive capacities required for efficient

and accurate performance (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). This reduction in efficiency is theorized to

be attributable primarily to an overload of working memory resources (Ashcraft, Kirk, & Hopko,

1998; Caviola, Mammarella, Cornoldi, & Lucangeli, 2012). Thus, in the presence of a math-

related stressor such as solving a multiplication problem or learning about the commutative

property of multiplication, math anxiety is proposed to use working memory resources, which

would otherwise be available to solve the problem or learn math content. An expanded version of

this theory, the attentional control theory, further proposes that initial attention to a task is

controlled by either the stimulus-driven system or the goal-directed system (Eysenck, Derakshan,

Santos, & Calco, 2007). In the case of math anxiety, a math stressor activates the stimulus-driven

system, which then undermines the goal-directed system of completing the math task (Eysenck et

al., 2007). Furthermore, negative cognitive biases, such as tendencies to attend to specific stimuli

and interpret them as threatening, are thought to be part of the initial processing components that

enable the distraction, making it difficult for an individual to focus on the details of a math

problem and instead fixate on the negative thoughts (Macleod & Mathews, 2012). Taken

7
together, these theories suggest that, in the presence of math stimuli, the attention of a person

with math anxiety, who may have a tendency to attend to and interpret math stimuli as

threatening, gets redirected from the goal of completing the task to the math stressor. Ultimately,

this redirection of attention reduces the available working memory to efficiently and accurately

complete the math task at hand.

Another theory has suggested a causal relation in the opposite direction of the attentional

control theory, whereby poor math achievement causes heightened math anxiety. The deficit

model suggests that poor basic number processing (e.g., counting, subitizing) is the primary

reason for anxiety during math situations (Maloney, Risko, Ansari, & Fugelsang, 2010; Núñez-

Peña & Suárez-Pellicioni, 2014; Tobias, 1986). This theory suggests that deficits in basic

numerical processing lead to negative encounters with math, which then creates anxiety during

subsequent math-related experiences and tasks. Several studies have provided empirical support

for this model, finding that students with high math anxiety perform worse than their lower math

anxiety counterparts in number magnitude representation skills (Maloney et al., 2010; Núñez-

Peña & Suárez-Pellicioni, 2014). Some researchers have further extended the math deficit model

to individuals with math learning disabilities, providing empirical evidence suggesting that these

populations are more susceptible to math anxiety than individuals without math learning

disability (Lai, Zhu, Chen, & Li, 2015; Wu, Wilcutt, Escovar, & Menon, 2014). However, other

work has failed to find support for this interpretation (Devine, Hill, Carey, & Szűcs, 2017).

Though the attentional control theory and the deficit model could be seen as competing

conceptualizations of the math anxiety-math achievement link, the opposing causal directions

found between studies testing these theories may instead be artifacts of study design.

Specifically, longitudinal studies often find that early math achievement influences later math

8
anxiety (Ma & Xu, 2004; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990), while experimental studies find that

math anxiety causes math achievement difficulties due to math anxiety’s online use of working

memory capacities (Ashcraft, Krause, & Hopko, 2007). Importantly, some work has attempted to

reconcile both theories by suggesting that these two causal pathways occur simultaneously

(Ashcraft et al., 2007; Carey et al., 2016; Pekrun, 2006). More generally, Pekrun’s control-value

theory of achievement emotions suggests that achievement emotions and achievement are

reciprocally related in a feedback loop (Pekrun, 2006). With regard to the domain of math and

the emotion of anxiety, the reciprocal theory combines the two theoretical perspectives of the

attentional control theory and the deficit model that assume different causal relations, and

proposes that math anxiety and math achievement are causally related to each other

bidirectionally (Devine et al., 2012; Gunderson, Park, Maloney, Beilock, & Levine, 2018; Ma &

Xu, 2004). Research has found supporting evidence for this perspective, finding differing

magnitudes of causal importance between math anxiety and math achievement depending on the

age of the sample (Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017; Gunderson et al., 2018; Pekrun

et al., 2017).

Potential Moderators of the Math Anxiety-Math Achievement Link

Based on previous empirical evidence, the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement has been theorized to vary depending on a number of sample and study factors. For

example, the two meta-analyses from the 1990s that investigated this relation found several

factors differentiated the strength of the negative correlation, including the gender of primary and

secondary school students (Hembree, 1990) and the assessments used to measure math

achievement (Ma, 1999). Of importance, many changes in social-contextual factors and study

measures have occurred over the last 25 years that may contribute to varying strengths in the

9
relation that were not evident or have changed since the publication of previous meta-analyses.

Accordingly, it is important to conduct an updated and thorough moderator analysis on the

current available work in order to understand the nuanced between-study differences that may

impact the strength of the reported math achievement-math anxiety relation. It is also important

to note that, for the moderators, the difference in the relations between subgroups (i.e., males,

females) is generally theorized to vary in magnitude (i.e., small versus moderate correlation) and

not in direction (i.e., positive versus negative correlation), which is generally found to be

negative.

Demographics of sample.

Gender. Previous research has found gender differences in self-reported math anxiety,

with higher self-reported scores found for females than for males (Devine, Fawcett, Szűcs, &

Dowker, 2012; Hart & Ganley, 2018), and small gender differences in math achievement,

although the direction is less clear-cut (Cimpian et al., 2016; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990).

The evidence so far on gender differences in the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement has also been mixed. The two meta-analyses from the 1990s that investigated this

relation each came to a different conclusion on this topic: Hembree (1990) found a stronger

negative correlation for male students compared to female students in grades 5 through 12 but

not for students in postsecondary school, whereas Ma (1999) found the correlations to be similar

for females and males. Some theory (Aiken, 1970) as well as recent empirical evidence (Hill et

al., 2016) adds yet another possible conclusion, suggesting that a stronger negative relation

between math anxiety and math achievement exists for females compared to males. In the

present meta-analysis, we will attempt to clarify these contradictory findings by empirically

testing whether gender moderates the relation between math anxiety and math achievement,

10
using the combined power of effect sizes from studies reporting correlations for completely male

or female samples.

Race, ethnicity, and country. In addition to gender differences in the relation between

math anxiety and math achievement, there may be significant differences that are evident

between racial groups, ethnic groups, or country of origin. Variability in math achievement and

math anxiety, separately, has been found between samples from different countries and samples

of different racial and ethnic backgrounds (Cipora, Szczygiel, Willmes, & Nuerk, 2015; Else-

Quest, Mineo, & Higgins, 2013; OECD, 2016; Pretorius & Norman, 1992; Young & Young,

2016; Zabulionis, 2001). Importantly, there may be variations that stem from the education

systems between countries and within countries that may be associated with the differences seen

in math anxiety and math achievement between racial/ethnic groups and countries. Investigating

whether the differences further appear in the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement will serve to better inform the roles of educational practices and policies between

countries and for different racial/ethnic groups.

When examining the influence of race on the correlation between math anxiety and math

achievement, previous work has found that the magnitude of the correlation did not differ for

samples that consisted of a homogenous race (e.g., effect sizes from majority European sample

or majority Asian sample combined into one group) compared to samples that were racially

diverse (Ma, 1999). However, it is unclear whether there is enough information available from

different racial groups within a specific country in the current literature that will allow for

meaningful comparisons between these more specific groups (e.g., majority African American

sample, majority Asian American sample, majority European American sample). We will

examine whether these potential differences can be tested in the present study.

11
 Additionally, some work has been done to clarify whether there are differences in the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement between countries (Engelhard, 1990; Foley

et al., 2017; Verkijika & De Wet, 2015). However, confounds related to the age of the study

samples may limit the generalizability of study findings. For example, analyses conducted from

international, large-cohort data sets of 15-year-old students, such as the PISA, have reported

significant differences across countries in the magnitude of the negative relation between math

anxiety and math achievement (Foley et al., 2017; Lee, 2009). Several other studies investigating

this relation in younger student samples across different countries have found varying

correlations, ranging from not significant to significant (Hill et al., 2016; Ganley & McGraw,

2016; Krinzinger et al., 2009; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey, & Harari, 2013). Both of these examples

suggest that differences in the size and significance of the relation for between different countries

may be due to the age of the sample as well as the country of the sample. To date, no work has

examined between-country differences in the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement with a study sample encompassing participants of various age levels. Thus in the

present meta-analysis, we aim to fill these gaps and examine whether the relation between math

anxiety and math achievement appears different across varying racial and ethnic groups and

across countries with samples of all ages.

Age and grade level. Research has investigated the relation between math anxiety and

math achievement in students of different ages. Notably though, the two meta-analyses from the

1990s did not report effect sizes from samples of students younger than grade 4 (Hembree, 1990;

Ma, 1999). The absence of younger samples in these two meta-analyses likely occurred because

no research investigating this relation had been conducted on younger students; at this point in

12
time, there were not many, if any, valid measures available to assess math anxiety in students

younger than grade 4 (Suinn, Taylor, & Edwards, 1988).

In the years since these publications, multiple researchers have developed and validated

math anxiety measures for use with students as young as grade 1, with some of this work finding

evidence for high levels of math anxiety in some students at these young ages (Ganley &

McGraw, 2016; Harari et al., 2013; Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013; Wu, Amin,

Barth, Malcarne, & Menon, 2012). Importantly though, studies investigating the relation between

math anxiety and math achievement in young children have found inconsistent results (Harari et

al., 2013; Hill et al., 2016; Jameson, 2014; Krinzinger, Kaufmann, & Willmes, 2007; Thomas &

Dowker, 2000). Some evidence suggests that the association between math anxiety and math

achievement for 6 to 9-year-olds is not significant (Thomas & Dowker, 2000), whereas other

research has found significant associations in samples of young children (Harari et al., 2013;

Krinzinger et al., 2007). Some of this work suggests that, when found to be significant, this

relation in younger children is due to general anxiety that is not math-specific (Hill et al., 2016).

The relation found in samples of young children may also be confounded by geographic

differences or anxiety measure differences, a possibility that is discussed in other sections of this

manuscript.

As for adolescents and young adults, a large body of research has found small-to-

moderate negative correlations between math anxiety and math achievement in middle school,

high school, and undergraduate student samples (Hembree, 1990; Ma, 1999). A large amount of

this work has been with undergraduate college students, and this methodological choice is likely

due to the ease with which an undergraduate sample can be accessed for research purposes in a

university setting. Some recent work has also examined whether the relation may differ in non-

13
student adult samples (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine, 2010; Hart & Ganley, 2018;

Maloney, Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2015), finding similar small-to-moderate

correlations in these samples. Overall though, it is currently unclear whether the magnitude of

the relation varies in size at different points of development.

Teachers. In addition to demographic characteristics such as gender, race, and age, a

person’s career choice may moderate the relation between math anxiety and math achievement.

Specifically, teachers, often elementary-level educators, have been a group of professionals that

have been studied with regard to their math anxiety. Previous research has found higher levels of

math anxiety for elementary education majors compared to people in other college majors like

the social sciences and business (Hembree, 1990). This higher than typical math anxiety in

teacher samples may have short- and long-term impacts on the students they educate. Some

research further suggests that teachers’ math anxiety alone may impact their students’ math

performance (Beilock et al., 2010; Ramirez, Hooper, Kersting, Ferguson, & Yeager, 2018).

Thus, a comparison of this relation for teacher samples compared to other samples is imperative

as it is unclear whether teacher math anxiety is more or less related to their math knowledge

when compared to the rest of the population.

Students with low math ability. Another subsample where we may find a different

relation between math anxiety and math achievement is students with low math ability. More

broadly, research has found that math anxiety levels were similar for students with low and

average levels of math ability (Hembree, 1990). Importantly though, according to the deficit

model described earlier in this paper, which theorizes that poor math performance leads to math

anxiety, it is suggested that students with low math ability may have higher math anxiety than

their counterparts with average math abilities. Some behavioral studies as well as brain imaging

14
studies have found supporting evidence for this hypothesis (Lindskog, Winman, & Poom, 2017;

Maloney et al., 2010; Núñez-Peña & Suárez-Pelicioni, 2014). However, whether there is a

difference in the magnitude of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement for

students with low math ability compared to students who do not have low math ability is still

unclear. Therefore, it is important to understand whether a differential trend exists in this relation

for students with low math ability compared to samples that are not selected for low math ability.

Measure characteristics.

Math anxiety scales. With the current availability of a variety of scales to assess math

anxiety, it may be useful for researchers to know how each scale differentially relates to math

achievement when selecting their study measures. One of the first and most well-known scales to

measure math anxiety is the 98-item Math Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS; Richardson & Suinn,

1972). In his 1999 meta-analysis, Ma compared the correlations of samples using the MARS (n =

15) to samples using other, non-MARS scales (n = 22). Importantly, he found no differences in

the correlations between these two groups of studies, suggesting that the MARS and non-MARS

scales produced similar correlations with math achievement.

However, since Ma’s (1999) meta-analysis, many newer and shorter math anxiety scales

have been developed using the most current psychometric methods (e.g., Ganley & McGraw,

2016; Harari et al., 2013; Hopko, Mahadevan, Bare, & Hunt, 2003; Núñez-Peña, Guilera, &

Suárez-Pellicioni, 2014). Some scales have also been adapted from previous scales for a variety

of reasons, such as to accommodate young children’s language abilities (e.g., Ganley &

McGraw, 2016; Harari et al., 2013), to be translated and better understood in other languages and

countries (e.g., Carey, Hill, Devine, & Fuchs, 2017), and to assess anxiety in more specific math

content areas like statistics (e.g., Baloğlu, 2002). In light of the number of novel math anxiety

15
scales, it is important to examine whether the math anxiety scale used moderates the relation

between math anxiety and math achievement.

Components of math anxiety. Some of the work investigating math anxiety has treated it

as a unidimensional construct (Richardson & Suinn, 1972); however, some researchers have

investigated whether math anxiety is multidimensional (Ganley & McGraw, 2016; Lukowski et

al., 2016; Rounds & Hendel, 1980; Plake & Parker, 1982). Evidence from factor analyses has

indicated that math anxiety is multidimensional, suggesting that, depending on the items used

within a scale, math anxiety can be made up of a variety of components. One distinction that has

been made is between worry, or the cognitive dimension of anxiety, and emotionality, or the

physiological dimension of anxiety (Liebert & Morris, 1967). Worry consists of negative

expectations and self-deprecating thoughts about a math situation, whereas emotionality refers to

the dread and unpleasant physical sensations associated with a math situation.

Another distinction has been made between math learning anxiety and math evaluation

anxiety (Plake & Parker, 1982; Hopko et al., 2003). Math learning anxiety involves responses to

situations surrounding learning in a math classroom, such as seeing the teacher write a math

equation on the board and opening up a math textbook. Math evaluation anxiety involves

responses to studying for and taking math tests. These two components were found to make up a

shortened 24-item version of the 98-item MARS (Richardson & Suinn, 1972), developed by

Plake & Parker (1982). Beyond these four components, research has also found other similar

components to these that involve anxiety associated with various aspects of math situations and

tasks, such as numerical processing anxiety (Wu et al., 2012), math problem-solving anxiety

(Gierl & Bisanz, 1995), and math error anxiety (Jameson, 2013). Although there may be overlap

between these categories (i.e., an item may ask about feeling worried while learning math,

16
combining components of worry and math learning anxiety), researchers have primarily

distinguished math anxiety between worry and emotionality or between math learning anxiety

and math evaluation anxiety components of math anxiety.

Some research has been done to examine whether there are differences in the relations

with math achievement for different components of math anxiety (Ganley & McGraw, 2016;

Lukowski et al., 2016). For example, Wigfield & Meece (1982) found that the component of

worry had weaker relations with math achievement (both rs = .02) than did the component of

negative affective reactions and math achievement (rs = -.22 and -.26). Thus, it is important to

understand whether, in the work currently available, the component of math anxiety is an

important distinction to take into account when examining the relation between math anxiety and

math achievement.

Math assessments. In addition to the math anxiety scale used, the strength of the relation

between math anxiety and math achievement may also depend on the type of assessment used to

measure math achievement. In general, the strength of the relation between anxiety and

performance is strong for high-stakes achievement measures, such as the SAT (Cassady &

Johnson, 2002). High-stakes testing situations may invoke high levels of anxiety and, as

suggested by the attentional control theory, this may lead to a stronger association with

achievement than other testing situations. However, meta-analytic work has shown a lower-

magnitude correlation between math anxiety and math achievement for standardized

achievement tests in comparison to researcher-made math tests and teacher reports of children’s

math achievement (Ma, 1999). It is not yet known whether evidence from recent work supports

the potential theory that a stronger relation exists between math anxiety and high-stakes,

standardized math tests compared to low-pressure testing situations, like researcher-developed

17
measures. Additionally, it may be important to test whether there are differences in the relation

with math anxiety for more diverse math achievement measures, such as exam scores in math

classes, and between more specific contexts of standardized achievement measures, such as

college entrance exams and tests administered in lab experiments.

Math content. Previous work has found significant, small-to-moderate correlations

between math anxiety and different math content areas, such as computation (r = -.25), math

concepts (r = -.27), problem solving (r = -.27), and abstract reasoning (r = -.40; Hembree, 1990).

Despite these significant correlations, most of these effect sizes were constrained to samples in

grade 7, high school, and postsecondary school. To extend this work, it is prudent to further

examine what the relation between math anxiety and math achievement looks like for more

specific math content areas typically developed or learned during childhood, such as

approximate number system or basic number knowledge. Additionally, with the number of

studies that have examined this relation in the past 25 years, it may be possible to expand the

search to include samples of a wider range of ages.

Though previous work did find significant relations between math anxiety and math

achievement for some content areas (Hembree, 1990), math content area has yet to be tested as a

moderator of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. There is some empirical

evidence indicating that there may be different relations between math anxiety and math tests

that assess certain math content; for example, difficult math problems with high cognitive

demands are more impacted by math anxiety in comparison to those math problems demanding

less cognitive resources (Ashcraft, 2002). Additionally, early math skills have been found to be

important for later math skills (Jordan, Kaplan, Raminemi, & Locuniak, 2009; Siegler et al.,

2012); as such, testing whether there are differential relations between math anxiety and different

18
content areas that typically develop and are learned during specific points in development could

have important implications on our understanding of math learning and practices in education.

The Present Study

Throughout the past several decades, researchers have made a strong collective effort to

understand the factors that significantly relate to math achievement, homing in on math anxiety

as a crucial correlate. In the current meta-analysis, we investigated two main research questions.

First, we examined the strength of the overall correlation between math anxiety and math

achievement across studies investigating this relation from 1992 through 2018. Second, we

conducted a moderator analysis to investigate whether the size of the correlation between math

anxiety and math achievement differed depending on study and sample characteristics,

specifically 1) gender, 2) race/ethnicity, 3) country, 4) grade level, 5) teacher samples, 6) low

math ability samples, 7) math anxiety scale, 8) component of math anxiety, 9) math assessment

type, and 10) content area of math assessment.

Method

Study Search and Selection

The search for relevant articles for the present study consisted of two techniques. The

first technique was based on Ma’s (1999) meta-analytic search techniques. We conducted an

online database search across three journal databases that focus on literature in psychology,

education, and medicine: PsycInfo, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and

Medline. In order to remain consistent with the search terms and Boolean operators across

databases, we used the ProQuest platform for each database search. We queried any available

document that contained our search terms, including both peer-reviewed publications and grey

literature, such as dissertations, theses, reports, and conference proceedings. The selected year

19
criteria for these database searches ranged from January of 1992, the year of Ma’s (1999) last

relevant study, to any documents or publications available in May of 2018 when the search was

conducted.

In order to conduct an exhaustive search through our query of online databases, we

expanded on the three search terms of mathematics, anxiety, and achievement originally used by

Ma (1999). We included the following search terms, making sure to select for articles that

included both the word math, or a related synonym, and the word anxiety (denoted by the

connecting AND): mathematics, math, maths, arithmetic, numerical, geometry, statistics,

calculus, OR algebra AND statistics anxiety, mathematics anxiety, math anxiety, OR maths

anxiety. We specifically searched for these terms if they appeared anywhere in a document.

For our second search technique to procure relevant studies for our literature search, we

sent a message to the Cognitive Development Society (CDS) listserv and requested unpublished

data or manuscripts on the relation of math anxiety and math achievement that could be included

in the present meta-analysis. Of note, this solicitation of data from the CDS listserv also included

several unpublished effect sizes from studies in the labs headed by two of the authors of the

current study.

Studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis if they met the following

inclusionary criteria. First, studies had to either report a zero-order correlation coefficient

between math anxiety and math achievement or have collected data that made the calculation of

a zero-order correlation coefficient possible. If the relation was not reported directly in the paper

but data were collected, or if multivariate regression coefficients were reported, zero-order

correlations were requested from authors via email. Second, studies had to measure math

achievement or math performance using a math-related assessment. Studies assessing math

20
achievement as student’s self-reported beliefs about their math ability or overall GPA scores that

were not specific to math were excluded. Third, if a study tested an intervention, we included

effect sizes from experimental groups only if data were available for both math anxiety and math

achievement prior to the intervention. For experimental study control groups, effect sizes from

assessments measured before and after the intervention were included.

As a fourth inclusion criterion, we chose to examine only studies published in the English

language to reduce potential errors in translation or interpretation. A fifth inclusion criterion was

that the achievement and anxiety measures had to be collected and matched by participant and

not be collected on separate groups of people (e.g., they could not have math achievement for

teachers and math anxiety for students). The sixth, and final, inclusion criterion was that

correlational studies were to be included even if they reported on longitudinal data. Correlation

coefficients from longitudinal studies with up to two time points were obtained between time

point (i.e., time 1 math anxiety with time 1 math achievement, time 1 math anxiety with time 2

math achievement, etc.). Correlation coefficients from longitudinal studies with more than two

time points were obtained for each time point separately, rather than for a composite of all time

points or between each and every time point (e.g., for three time points, we coded three

correlations: time 1 math anxiety with time 1 math achievement, time 2 math anxiety with time 2

math achievement, and time 3 math anxiety with time 3 math achievement).

Coding Procedures and Included Studies

Figure 1 displays a flow chart of the article selection process. The two database searches

yielded a total of 1556 relevant documents. We excluded 293 repeated titles, making a final

count of 1263 independent documents found through the initial database search. These

documents were then subject to close review using the previously outlined inclusion criteria. At

21
each round, questions regarding coding specific articles were discussed as a group through a

private, online messaging system and through ad hoc meetings as needed, with the first and

second authors resolving any questions unanimously. Training for each round of coding

consisted of reviewing the inclusion criteria as a group prior to coding articles and answering any

questions that arose until all criteria were well understood.

In Round 1 of narrowing down a final study sample, the first four authors reviewed the

study titles and abstracts obtained from the online database search and separated these articles

into yes, no, and maybe categories based on inclusion criteria. During Round 1, we excluded the

658 articles that were coded no, included the 266 articles that were coded yes, and determined

that the inclusion of the remaining 339 maybe documents was unclear and subject to further

inspection in Round 2.

Round 2 consisted of reviewing full-text documents separately for each of the articles

identified as maybes from Round 1 and categorizing them into yes or no categories, again based

on inclusion criteria. We split the articles so that each article was coded by two coders selected

from the first four authors. If the two coders’ category choices did not match for an article, these

articles were discussed at a roundtable discussion among the first four authors to determine

whether or not the study was eligible to be included, using the abstract and full text of the article

to make the decision. Out of the 339 articles subject to Round 2, we excluded 192 studies and

included 147 studies.

The 413 included articles from Round 1 and Round 2 were coded for descriptive

information and information for moderation analyses during Round 3. The following study

information from included studies in Rounds 1 and 2 were entered into a Qualtrics survey:

correlation coefficients, sample size, gender, race/ethnicity, country, age and grade level, teacher

22
sample, low math ability sample, math anxiety scale, math assessment type, and math content

area. These studies were divided between all six authors, all of whom attended a 1-hour training

session to learn how to extract the necessary information for each relevant variable prior to

coding. In this round, we further excluded 86 studies. Out of the remaining 327 studies that were

included and coded during Round 3, 128 studies reported at least 1 correlation coefficient that

could be used in this meta-analysis.

The remaining 199 studies did not include the necessary correlation coefficient(s) and

were subject to Round 4, where authors were emailed to request correlation information.

Corresponding authors of specific studies were contacted by email by the first or second author.

During Round 4, we received responses with the information that we needed from authors for 69

of these studies (35%). We excluded the remaining 130 studies from the 199 studies subject to

Round 4 because we were unable to obtain the effect size information needed for inclusion.

Thus, overall, the two online database search waves yielded 197 relevant studies to

include in this meta-analysis. The second search technique of emailing the CDS listserv yielded

information from 26 unpublished data sets and manuscripts. In total, we included 223 studies in

the present meta-analysis.

Inter-rater reliability. Twenty percent of the studies included in Round 3 were selected

to be double-coded and split between all six coders. The index of agreement rate was calculated

for all data extracted by coders who double-coded the article for the inclusion variable, the

number of effect sizes, correlation, sample size, gender, race/ethnicity, country, grade level,

teachers, students with low math ability, math anxiety scale (separate for child, adolescent/adult,

and scale topic), components of math anxiety, math achievement scale, and math content.

23
 We first calculated the agreement rate for the inclusion variable that indicated whether

the coder decided to include the study in our sample, based on our inclusion criteria. We then

calculated the agreement rate for the number of effect sizes that each coder decided was pertinent

from each study. If coders disagreed on the inclusion variable, the study was not included in the

agreement rate calculation for the number of effect sizes and moderator variables. Finally, we

calculated the agreement rate for each of the moderator variables, based on the final codes that

these originally entered codes would have been categorized into for the moderator analyses (see

Coding Procedures section). If coders disagreed on the number of effect sizes, we only coded the

agreement rate for moderator variables for the effect sizes that overlapped between the coders.

Because we had different pairs of raters selected from six possible raters code a random subset of

these studies, agreement rate was calculated for each pair of raters (15 possible pairs) and

averaged across them for each variable.

The average agreement rate for each variable is reported in Table S1. The average

agreement rate was 91% for the inclusion variable, 75% for the number of effect sizes, 85% for

the correlation coefficient, and 72% for the sample size. Average agreement rates for the

moderator variables ranged from 84% to 100%, with an average of 94.8%. To ensure accurate

coding of variables from included studies, most included study variables were checked for

accuracy by another independent coder or verified by the first author.

Demographic information. For each effect size, demographic and measure information

were recorded in an online Qualtrics survey and then coded for the moderator analysis into

particular categories. The coding scheme is outlined below.

Gender. Gender was entered as the percentage of males reported in the sample for each

effect size. If gender information was not available in the document, gender was entered as not

24
reported. Reported gender information was then coded into two categories: 1) samples made up

of 100% male participants (k = 38) and 2) samples made up of 100% female participants (k =

52). Any samples with greater than 0, less than 100%, or not reported male percentages were not

included in the gender moderator analysis (k = 657).

Race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was entered as whether the sample associated with each

effect size consisted of 75% or more 1) White, 2) Black, 3) Hispanic, or 4) Asian participants, 5)

whether the sample consisted of a racially or ethnically diverse group (i.e., no race or ethnicity

was more than 75% of the sample), or 6) whether the racial or ethnic breakdown of the sample

was not reported. From this initial coding scheme, we found few effect sizes that consisted of

primarily Black (k = 1), Hispanic (k = 1), or Asian participants (k = 42). We also found that a

large percentage of the effect sizes that had reported race/ethnicity information were from the

United States (75%), and that all except one of the Asian samples were from Asia. Thus to

reduce potential confounds related to the country, we only included effect sizes for samples from

the United States in the race/ethnicity moderator analysis. We ended up coding our race/ethnicity

variable into two categories: 1) effect sizes with samples consisting of 75% or more White

participants (k = 104) and 2) effect sizes with samples consisting of 75% or more non-White

participants (k = 72). Any effect sizes without race/ethnicity information reported were not

included in the race/ethnicity moderator analysis (k = 571).

Country. Country information was entered as either the country or countries reported by

the paper for the sample for each effect size or as not reported if country information was not

available. There were 52 countries represented (see Table S2 for individual country correlations),

and 23 out of these 52 countries (44.2%) had only k=1 (i.e., only one effect size represented the

relation for that one country). Thus, we grouped countries according to their respective continent.

25
We will refer to the “country” moderator as the “continent” moderator when describing our

analyses in the remainder of the paper. We had effect sizes representing samples from six

continents: North America (k = 389), South America (k = 26), Europe (k = 204), Asia (k = 103),

Africa (k = 11), and the geographic region of Oceania, which includes the countries of Australia

and New Zealand (k = 8). Samples that did not report country information were not included in

the continent moderator analysis (k = 6).

To account for the variation in cultures among the many countries within these

continents, we conducted supplemental moderator analyses by country or region for each

continent. North America, South America, Oceania, and Africa each had a small enough number

of countries to compare at the country level. However, Asia and Europe were represented by

effect size estimates from a large number of countries (i.e., Asia = 16 countries; Europe = 26

countries). Thus, we tested region as a moderator. Asia was divided into five regions (i.e., North,

South, East, West, Southeast; Pariona, 2018) and Europe into four regions (i.e., North, South,

East, West; Nag, 2018). We have added a figure of the overall effect sizes for these Asian and

European regions (as well as the other continents) in Figure S1. Supplemental moderator

analyses for each continent and region, separately, are presented in Table S3 and pairwise

comparisons for significant moderators are presented in Table S4.

Grade level. Grade level(s) (i.e., year in school) of the sample for each effect size was

selected from one or more of the following choices: kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, grade 3,

grade 4, grade 5, grade 6, grade 7, grade 8, grade 9, grade 10, grade 11, grade 12, community

college students, undergraduate students, graduate students, non-student adults, or not reported.

Mean age, standard deviation of age, minimum age, and maximum age of each sample were also

recorded if reported in the study.

26
 For samples with no reported grade level but with a reported age, we estimated the grade

according to the average compulsory age for students entering into each grade from the United

States, based on the mean age or the highest category for the range of age if reported (Education

Commission of the States, 2018). For samples that included participants from two grades across

multiple categories (e.g., grades 5 and 6) we first estimated the grade based on mean age if

available. If mean age was not reported and samples were from consecutive grades (i.e., grades 8

and 9), we coded the sample into the category for the highest grade of the two. If mean age was

not reported and the samples were from two nonconsecutive grades (e.g., grades 6 and 9), we

coded the sample into the category for the average grade rounded up (e.g., rounded up to grade 8

from grade 7.5). If more than two consecutive grades were reported with an odd number of

grades, and several of them overlapped across multiple groups (e.g., grades 6 through 10), we

first estimated the grade based on mean age, if available. If the mean age was not reported, a

mean grade was calculated based on the median grade of the total grade range reported, and

subsequently coded into the grade category in which that median grade was included (e.g.,

samples with students in grades 7 through 9 were calculated to be in grade 8 and coded as being

in the grade category for grades 6 through 8). If more than two grades were reported that were

not consecutive (e.g., grades 7, 8, and 10), the average grade was taken, rounded to the closest

integer, and coded into the corresponding category (e.g., the average of grades 7, 8, and 10 is

grade 8.33 and would be rounded to grade 8 and would fall under the category for grades 6

through 8). For those samples that included students in an even number of multiple, consecutive

grade levels that spanned across multiple categories, we coded them into the higher of the middle

categories (e.g., samples with students in grades 7 through 10 were coded into the high school

category because grade 9 is high school).

27
 There were no samples of kindergarten participants. For our analysis, we coded grade

levels into six broader categories: (1) grades 1 through 2 (early elementary; k = 68), (2) grades 3

through 5 (late elementary; k = 89), (3) grades 6 through 8 (middle/junior-high school; k = 116),

(4) grades 9 through 12 (high school or pre-university; k = 99), (5) undergraduate and graduate

students (postsecondary; k = 355), and (6) non-student adult samples (k = 20).

Teachers. Effect sizes were coded as representing teacher samples if the study reported

that the sample was made up of pre-service or practicing teachers (k = 58). We compared the

average effect size obtained with teacher samples to the average effect size obtained for non-

teacher samples (k = 689).

Students with low math ability. If the study reported that the authors selected a complete

sample based on having low math ability, we coded them as such (k = 18). We compared effect

sizes of selected samples with low math ability to effect sizes for samples not selected based on

ability level (k = 729).

Measures information.

Math anxiety scale. Math anxiety measures were categorized in three different ways.

Table 1 lists definitions and examples of each of these three categorizations for math anxiety

scale. We first categorized math anxiety scales based on whether they were originally developed

to assess children’s math anxiety. Child math anxiety scales were coded into six categories: 1)

Math Anxiety Rating Scale – Elementary (MARS-E; k = 42; Suinn, Taylor, & Edwards, 1988),

2) Scale for Early Mathematics Anxiety (SEMA; k = 19; Wu et al., 2012), 3) versions of the

Math Anxiety Scale for Young Children (MASYC; k = 22; Harari et al., 2013; Ganley &

McGraw, 2016), 4) Children’s Math Anxiety Questionnaire (CMAQ; k = 36; Ramirez et al.,

2013), 5) Math Anxiety Questionnaire (MAQ; k = 11; Thomas & Dowker, 2000), and 6) all other

28
math anxiety scales made for children (k = 25). For this variable, any math anxiety scale that was

not developed to assess math anxiety in children was coded as missing and excluded from the

moderator analysis for children’s math anxiety scales (k = 592).

We then categorized math anxiety scales based on whether they were originally

developed to assess adolescent and postsecondary/adult math anxiety. Ten categories were coded

for adolescent and postsecondary/adult math anxiety measures: 1) Math Anxiety Rating Scale

(MARS) and MARS-based measures (k = 197; e.g., Hopko et al., 2003; Richardson & Suinn,

1972), 2) one-item math anxiety measures (k = 18; e.g., Núñez-Peña et al., 2014), 3) Fennema

Sherman Math Anxiety Scale (FSMAS; k = 44; Fennema & Sherman, 1976), 4) MARS-based

measures created for adolescents (k = 8), like the MARS-Adolescents (MARS-A; Suinn &

Edwards, 1982), 5) the math anxiety scale used by the Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA; k = 56), 6) Achievement Emotion Questionnaire Math Anxiety Subscale

(AEQ; k = 7; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011), 7) Math Anxiety Scale created

by Betz (MAS; k = 25; Betz, 1978), 8) Math Anxiety Scale created by Meece (MAS; k = 15;

Meece, 1982), 9) Math Anxiety Scale created by Bai and colleagues (k = 19; Bai, Wang, Pan, &

Frey, 2009), and 10) all other measures (k = 123). For this variable, any math anxiety scale that

was specified to assess math anxiety in children was coded as missing and excluded from the

moderator analysis for adolescent and adult math anxiety scales (k = 235).

Math anxiety topic. We also created a third math anxiety scale variable where we coded

whether the anxiety topic assessed was math or statistics specific. For this variable, if the anxiety

scale explicitly stated that the anxiety topic being assessed was for statistics then the scale was

coded as statistics anxiety (k = 80). If the scale did not specify that it assessed anxiety in the

subject of statistics, then it was coded as math anxiety (k = 667).

29
 Components of math anxiety. Table 1 lists definitions and example items for four of the

most commonly measured components of math anxiety: worry, emotionality, math evaluation

anxiety, and math learning anxiety. This moderator was coded into six categories that

differentiated between these four components: 1) worry (k = 14), 2) emotionality, including

affect, dread, and negative reactions (k = 7), 3) both worry and emotionality (k = 11), 4) math

evaluation anxiety, including test and examination anxiety (k = 55), 5) math learning anxiety,

including class/course anxiety (k = 35), and 6) both math evaluation and math learning anxiety (k

= 120). If the study explicitly specified that the correlation was between one of these specific

components of math anxiety and math achievement, then it was coded in its respective category.

In addition, widely-used scales that had previous factor analyses conducted, like the MARS

(Richardson & Suinn, 1972) with factor analysis done by Rounds & Hendel (1978) and the

AMAS (Hopko et al., 2003), were coded using the factor structure found in the construct

validation studies, unless a different factor structure was found and stated for a newer individual

study or if the effect size was for one of the multiple components. If the effect size did not

explicitly specify that the math anxiety scale was assessing one of these categories or if it was

measuring categories that overlapped with other categories that were not included (e.g., math

performance adequacy anxiety) then it was excluded from the moderator analysis (k = 505).

Math assessment. Table 1 lists definitions and examples of each category for type of

math assessment. Math assessments were coded into five categories that characterized the type of

assessment: 1) standardized criterion-referenced or norm-referenced assessment used for high-

stakes testing (k = 56), 2) standardized assessment used for research purposes (k = 322), 3) non-

standardized researcher-made or other assessments (k = 166), 4) course grades (k = 113), and 5)

class exam grades (k = 90). If a math assessment contained a composite score made up of several

30
measures that could be coded into one of the five categories, that measure was coded into the

appropriate category. If assessments overlapped across more than one category, these effect sizes

were coded in the “non-standardized researcher-made or other assessments” category.

Math content. We adapted the math content category definitions from Peng, Namkung,

Barnes, & Sun (2016) as a model for coding math content in the current meta-analysis. Table 1

provides definitions and examples of these categories. The content of the math assessment was

determined from each article and initially coded into whichever content area(s) they measured.

Effect sizes were then used for the moderator analysis if the assessment measured achievement

in only one content area: 1) approximate number system (k = 14), 2) basic number knowledge (k

= 30), 3) whole number calculation (k = 113), 4) word problem solving (k = 20), 5) fractions,

decimals, or percentages (k = 10), 6) geometry (k = 9), 7) algebra (k = 34), and 8) statistics, data

analysis, and probability (k = 105). If the math assessment assessed multiple content areas, the

effect size was excluded from the math content moderator analysis (k = 412).

Data Analysis

Overall average effect size. We used Pearson’s r correlation coefficient as the effect

size for the present meta-analysis. Under the assumption that the effect size would be based on

variables using scales that were continuous rather than rank-ordered or categorical, we requested

Pearson correlation coefficients from authors who reported Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Pearson correlation coefficients were converted to Fisher’s Z-scores to approximate a normal

distribution of the population effect sizes (Cohn & Becker, 2003).

Due to varying sample and measure characteristics used to assess math anxiety and math

achievement, the overall average effect size model was fitted as a random-effects model. The

sample of included effect sizes was considered to come from a universal number of populations

31
instead of one single population; therefore, the true effect size that a study estimates is

considered to be random and made up of the true estimate plus the sampling error variance and

between-studies variance. Once the true effect size estimate was calculated, we transformed the

overall Fisher’s z-score back to a Pearson’s r correlation coefficient for interpretation and

reporting purposes.

Effect sizes for samples with multiple reported correlation coefficients (i.e., dependent

samples) violate the assumption of independent samples; therefore, we conducted multilevel

meta-analyses to model the nested structure of the data. This technique accounts for correlations

between the dependent effect sizes and models the Level-1 (effect size) and Level-2 (sample)

correlations (Maas & Hox, 2004). To conduct these multilevel meta-analyses, the metafor

package from the statistical program R was used with the restricted maximum likelihood

estimation method (Viechtabauer, 2010).

Heterogeneity of effect sizes. To determine if there was a significant amount of

unexplained between-study heterogeneity (i.e., large between-samples variance beyond within-

sample variance) in the combined estimate of overall effect size and whether it would be

appropriate to test for moderators to account for this unexplained heterogeneity (Cooper, Hedges,

& Valentine, 2009), we calculated the Q-statistic and its significance. This statistic tests the null

hypothesis that the study effect sizes are estimates from a single population against the

alternative hypothesis that the observed variance in study effect sizes is greater than would be

expected by chance if all studies shared a common population effect size (Cochran, 1954). In

addition, we also calculated the associated I2 -statistic. This is a descriptive statistic that indicates

how much of the variability across studies is due to heterogeneity as opposed to chance due to

sampling error (Higgins & Thompson, 2002).

32
 Analyzing variability in effect sizes. We tested whether the amount of unexplained

variance across the effect sizes was attributable to specific demographic or measure

characteristics from the sample of studies. We used an ANOVA framework and performed

separate omnibus tests for each moderator variable to determine whether there were significant

differences in the size of the effect sizes between the groups in each moderator. If the omnibus

test was significant, we tested for further significant differences between effect sizes for each

subgroup of the moderator using pair-wise comparisons for every possible pair of subgroups. To

reduce the false discovery rate, we applied the Benjamini-Hochberg correction to each group of

pair-wise comparisons (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Finally, to obtain overall effect sizes for

each subgroup within a moderator, we conducted random-effects multi-level models for each

subgroup using datasets that only contained effect sizes for the specific subgroup.

Publication bias. We used several indices to assess publication bias. First, we tested

whether there were significantly different correlations for effect sizes that came from published

studies compared to unpublished work. We categorized the moderator variable of publication

status into two groups, 1) published studies (k = 520) and 2) unpublished work including theses,

dissertations, and unpublished studies (k = 227).

Next, we checked whether the effect sizes included in the meta-analytic sample are

distributed symmetrically around the average overall effect size. This method to assess potential

publication bias provides a visual and statistical test that detects the difference in effect sizes

from large study samples compared to effect sizes from small study samples. Small study

samples are more likely to be published only if they produce positive results, compared to large

study samples that are more likely to be published regardless of the result (Sterne & Harbord,

2004). We created and visually inspected a funnel plot, which graphs each effect size by its

33
standard error in a scatter plot, which is an indicator of the sample size of the study. We expect

the funnel plot to show an even distribution of the effect sizes around the true population effect

size, with effect sizes getting more precise and closer to the true effect size as the sample size

increases. The funnel plot would indicate publication bias against small studies if it is visually

evident that negative results (i.e., weak or positive correlations between math anxiety and math

achievement) are associated with large standard errors (i.e., lower half of plot).

We also statistically tested for asymmetry by conducting Egger’s test, a meta-regression

analysis that estimates effect size precision (i.e., the standard error) as a predictor of the

correlation coefficient, in a multi-level model (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). If the

meta-regression analysis is significant, it indicates the intercept of the dependent variable (i.e.,

the correlation coefficient) is significantly different from zero, suggesting that the effect sizes are

not distributed evenly around the true population effect size.

Finally, we also used the trim-and-fill method on the effect sizes in the meta-analytic

sample. The trim-and-fill method determines the adjusted estimate of the average overall effect

size and its significance after filling in sparse areas of the funnel plot and removing outliers

(Duval & Tweedie, 2000). The trim-and-fill method is an indicator of how biased an overall

effect size is from the current meta-analytic sample compared to the effect size from a sample

that may more accurately account for the missing effect sizes that may not have been published

and therefore are not represented on the funnel plot (i.e., file drawer problem; Rosenthal, 1979).

34
 Results

Overall Average Correlation Between Math Anxiety and Math Achievement

The 223 studies included in the present meta-analysis consisted of 747 correlation

coefficients from 332 independent samples with approximately 385,441 individual participants

(see supplemental materials for coded information for each effect size [Tables S5 and S6] and

references of included studies). Overall, the average correlation between math anxiety and math

achievement was small-to-moderate, negative, and significant (r = -.28, 95% Confidence Interval

[CI] [-.29, -.26]). As indicated by the Q-statistic and I2-statistic, there was a significant amount of

unexplained variance across the range of effect sizes included in the calculation of the overall

average effect size (Q = 7784.61, p < .0001, df = 747; I2 = 90.42), suggesting that these effect

sizes did not come from the same population and validating our use of a random-effects model.

Moderation Effects of Demographic and Measure Characteristics

Next, we conducted moderator analyses to examine potential demographic or measure

characteristics that might explain the variation found in the relation between math anxiety and

math achievement. Average effect sizes for subgroups within each moderator were negative and

statistically significant (see Figures 2-5 for forest plots by subgroup), with the exception of the

average effect size for the approximate number system subgroup within the math content

moderator (r = -.09, 95% CI [-.18, .005], p = .06). Table 2 shows F-test results, Q-statistics,

variance explained by Level-1 and Level-2 for each moderator analysis, and I2-statistics. Even

after accounting for differences in the subgroups within each moderator, a significant amount of

heterogeneity still remained in the overall effect size for each moderator analysis. P-values

obtained from pairwise comparisons for subgroups of significant moderators were interpreted

35
based on Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted cutoffs. We report comparisons that remained significant

after the Benjamini-Hochberg correction was taken into account.

Moderation Effects of Demographic Characteristics

Gender. The subgroups for testing gender as a moderator were samples with 100% male

participants (k = 38; r = -0.24, 95% CI [-.29, -.17]) and those with 100% female participants (k =

52; r = -0.28, 95% CI [-.34, -.23]). The analysis indicated that the average effect size for males

was not significantly different from the average for females (F[1, 88] = 1.17, p = .28).

Race/ethnicity. The subgroups for testing race/ethnicity as a moderator were samples

with greater than 75% White participants (k = 72; r = -0.26, 95% CI [-.30, -.22]) and samples

with less than 75% White participants (k = 104; r = -0.24, 95% CI [-.28, -.21]). The moderator

analysis indicated that the average effect sizes for these two groups did not significantly differ

from one another (F[1, 174] = 0.28, p = .60).

Continent. The subgroups for testing continent as a moderator were North America (k =

389; r = -.26, 95% CI [-.29, -.24]), South America (k = 26; r = -.20, 95% CI [-.37, .00]), Europe

(k = 204; r = -.27, 95% CI [-.31, -.24]), Asia (k = 103; r = -.32, 95% CI [-.36, -.26]), Africa (k =

11; r = -.25, 95% CI [-.31, -.19]), and Oceania (k = 8; r = -.38, 95% CI [-.55, -.18]). The omnibus

test for the continent moderator analysis was not statistically significant (F[6, 743] = 1.56, p =

.17), indicating that there were no statistically significant differences in the relations between

math anxiety and math achievement between samples from each of the six continents. The

results of the supplemental continent moderator analyses and pairwise comparisons are reported

in Tables S3 and S4.

Grade. The subgroups for testing grade level as a moderator were grades 1 and 2 (k = 68,

r = -.26; 95% CI [-.31, -.23]), grades 3 through 5 (k = 89, r = -.20; 95% CI [-.25, -.14]), grades 6

36
through 8 (k = 116, r = -.30; 95% CI [-.35, -.26]), grades 9 through 12 (k = 99, r = -.34; 95% CI

[-.36, -.31]), undergraduate and graduate students (k = 355, r = -.24; 95% CI [-.27, -.22]), and

non-student adult samples (k = 20, r = -.32; 95% CI [-.39, -.25]). The omnibus test for the grade

level moderator analysis was statistically significant (F[5, 744] = 6.64, p < .001), indicating that

at least one of the subgroups within the grade level moderator variable is statistically

significantly different from at least one of the other subgroups.

Pairwise comparisons indicated several statistically significant differences between grade

levels in the average correlation between math anxiety and math achievement (Table 3). Students

in grades 1 and 2 demonstrated a statistically significantly lower magnitude correlation than

students in grades 9 through 12 (b = -.07, p = .02). The average correlation for students in grades

3 through 5 was significantly weaker than the average correlation between math anxiety and

math achievement for students in grades 6 through 8 (b = -.11, p = .004), grades 9 through 12 (b

= -.14, p < .001), and non-student adults (b = -.14, p = .02). In addition, the average correlation

between math anxiety and math achievement for students in grades 6 through 8 (b = .07, p = .01)

and grades 9 through 12 (b = .10, p < .001) was significantly stronger than the average

correlation found for postsecondary student samples.

We also were interested in further examining this relation to determine whether the grade

level differences in the relation between math anxiety and math achievement were evident across

all math content areas or just specific math content areas. We conducted post-hoc grade level

moderator analyses separately for samples with achievement measures that assessed only one

math content area (Table S7). We found that relations between math anxiety and specific math

content areas were mostly similar across grade levels except for assessments measuring basic

number knowledge (F[3, 26] = 6.42, p = .002) and algebra (F[3, 30] = 3.26, p = .04). Pairwise

37
comparisons, shown in Table S8, indicated that students in grades 1 and 2 showed a significantly

stronger correlation between math anxiety and basic number knowledge than did students in

grades 3 through 5 (b = .40, p < .001) and postsecondary school students (b = .29, p = .03).

Students in grades 3 through 5 had weaker relations between math anxiety and basic number

knowledge than did students in grades 6 through 8 (b = -.17, p = .001). The relation between

math anxiety and algebra knowledge was significantly weaker for postsecondary school students

compared to the relation for students in grades 6 through 8 (b = .21, p = .01) and grades 9

through 12 (b = .29, p < .001).

Teachers. The subgroups for testing teacher samples as a moderator were pre-service and

practicing teacher samples (k = 58, r = -.31; 95% CI [-.37, -.24]) and non-teacher samples (k =

689, r = -.27; 95% CI [-.29, -.26]). The omnibus test for the teacher moderator analysis was not

statistically significant (F[1, 745] = 0.59, p = .44), indicating that there were no statistically

significant differences in the relations between math anxiety and math achievement for pre-

service and practicing teacher samples compared to non-teacher samples.

Students with low math ability. The subgroups for testing students with low math

ability as a moderator were samples selected for low math ability (k = 18, r = -.09; 95% CI [-.17,

-.004]) and samples not selected for low math ability (k = 729, r = -.28; 95% CI [-.30, -.26]). The

moderator analysis for low math ability samples was statistically significant (F[1, 745] = 6.29, p

= .01), indicating that the correlation coefficient for the relation between math achievement and

math anxiety for samples selected for low math ability was significantly weaker than the relation

between math achievement and math anxiety for samples not selected for low math ability (b = -

.21, p = .01; Table 3).

38
Moderation Effect of Measure Characteristics

Math anxiety scales.

Child math anxiety scales. The subgroups within the child math anxiety scales moderator

variable were the MARS-E (k = 42, r = -.24, 95% CI [-.34, -.14]), SEMA (k = 19, r = -.23. 95%

CI [-.41, -.03]), MASYC (k = 22, r = -.24, 95% CI [-.30, -.16]), CMAQ (k = 36, r = -.26, 95% CI

[-.34, -.20]), MAQ (k = 11, r = -.10, 95% CI [-.16, -.04]), and other child math anxiety scales (k

= 25, r = -.34, 95% CI [-.44, -.23]). The omnibus test conducted for the six subgroups within

child math anxiety scales was not statistically significant (F[5, 149] = 1.26, p = .28), indicating

that there were no statistically significant differences in the relations between math anxiety and

math achievement across different types of math anxiety scales typically used for children.

Adolescent and adult math anxiety scales. The subgroups within the adolescent and

adult math anxiety scales moderator variable were the MARS (k = 197, r = -.23; 95% CI [-.25, -

.20]), one-item (k = 18, r = -.18; 95% CI [-.27, -.09), FSMAS (k = 44, r = -.37; 95% CI [-.43, -

.31]), MARS-A (k = 8, r = -.31; 95% CI [-.49, -.11]), PISA (k = 56, r = -.34; 95% CI [-.36, -

.31]), AEQ-MA (k = 7, r = -.39; 95% CI [-.52, -.24]), MAS-Betz (k = 25, r = -.35; 95% CI [-.44,

-.25]), MAS-Meece (k = 15, r = -.24; 95% CI [-.32, -.16]), MAS-Bai (k = 19, r = -.28; 95% CI [-

.32, -.24]), and other scales (k = 123, r = -.28; 95% CI [-.32, -.24]). The omnibus test performed

for the ten categories within adolescent and adult math anxiety measures was statistically

significant (F[9, 502] = 6.87, p < .001), indicating that at least one of the subgroups within the

adolescent and adult math anxiety moderator variable is statistically significantly different from

at least one of the other subgroups.

Results are listed in Table 4 for pairwise comparisons between subgroups of adolescent

and adult math anxiety scales. MARS-based scales were found overall to have a significantly

39
weaker relation with math achievement than did the FSMAS (b = -.16, p < .001), PISA (b = -.12,

p < .001), the AEQ-MA (b = -.18, p = .003) and MAS-Betz (b = -.14, p = .003). Similarly, one-

item math anxiety scales were found to have an average correlation coefficient with math

achievement that was significantly weaker than the relation between math achievement and

FSMAS (b = -.21, p = .001), PISA (b = -.16, p < .001), and the AEQ-MA (b = -.39, p < .001).

Anxiety scale topic. The subgroups within the anxiety scale topic moderator were math

anxiety (k = 667, r = -.28, 95% CI [-.30, -.26]) and statistics-specific anxiety (k = 80, r = -.17,

95% CI [-.24, -.11]). The moderator analysis for anxiety scale topic was statistically significant

(F[1, 747] = 12.14, p = .001), indicating that the correlation coefficient for the relation between

math achievement and anxiety scales assessing math anxiety was significantly stronger than the

relation between math achievement and scales assessing statistics-specific anxiety (b = .09, p =

.001).

We were also interested in determining whether the stronger relation between math

achievement and math anxiety held even when examining only statistics-specific achievement.

We conducted two additional post-hoc anxiety scale topic moderator analyses, one using effect

sizes that only assessed statistics content knowledge and the other analysis using effect sizes that

assessed everything except statistics content (Table S7). We found that the moderator did not

remain statistically significant for achievement assessments of only statistics knowledge (F[1,

103] = 0.14, p = .71), indicating that math anxiety (k = 49) and statistics anxiety (k = 56) were

similarly related to achievement in statistics. Additionally, we found that when the effect sizes

consisted of scales assessing other types of math achievement, the moderator was still significant

(F[1, 640] = 20.76, p < .001), with math anxiety (k = 618) having a stronger relation with non-

statistics content compared to statistics anxiety scales (k = 24).

40
 Components of math anxiety. The subgroups within the components of math anxiety

were worry (k = 14, r = -.37, 95% CI [-.50, -.23]), emotionality (k = 7, r = -.35, 95% CI [-.45, -

.24]), both worry and emotionality (k = 11, r = -.24 95% CI [-.37, -.10]), math evaluation anxiety

(k = 55, r = -.21, 95% CI [-.24, -.16]), math learning anxiety (k = 35, r = -.28, 95% CI [-.35, -

.21]), and both math evaluation and learning anxiety (k = 120, r = -.22, 95% CI [-.24, -.19]). The

omnibus test performed for the six categories within components of math anxiety was

statistically significant (F[5, 236] = 3.02, p = .01), indicating that at least one of the subgroups is

statistically significantly different from at least one of the other subgroups. Results for pairwise

comparisons (Table 5) indicated that the relation between math achievement and the worry

component of math anxiety was stronger than the relation between math achievement and math

evaluation anxiety (b = .18, p = .002) and between math achievement and both math evaluation

and learning anxiety (b = .17, p = .001). The relation between math achievement and math

learning anxiety was also stronger than the relation between math achievement and both math

evaluation and learning anxiety (b = .08, p = .01).

Math assessments. The subgroups within the math assessment moderator were high-

stakes standardized math tests (k = 56, r = -.26, 95% CI [-.30, -.23]), standardized measures for

research purposes (k = 322, r = -.29, 95% CI [-.31, -.27]), researcher-made and non-standardized

measures for research (k = 166, r = -.29, 95% CI [-.34, -.25]), course grades in math classes (k =

113, r = -.27, 95% CI [-.31, -.23]), and exam grades on math tests (k = 90, r = -.20, 95% CI [-.24,

-.15]). The omnibus test for the math assessment moderator was statistically significant (F[4,

742] = 2.34, p = .05) and pairwise comparisons for this moderator are shown in Table 6.

Specifically, the overall relation found between math anxiety and math exam grades was weaker

than the relation between math anxiety and standardized assessments used for research (b = -.08,

41
p = .002) and between math anxiety and non-standardized research measures and other math

assessments (b = -.09, p = .01).

Math content. The subgroups within the math content area moderator were approximate

number system (k = 14, r = -.09, 95% CI [-.18, .005]), basic number knowledge (k = 30, r = -.16,

95% CI [-.25, -.07]), whole number calculation (k = 113, r = -.23, 95% CI [-.25, -.20]), word

problem solving (k = 20, r = -.27, 95% CI [-.40, -.15]), fractions, decimals, and percentages (k =

10, r = -.37, 95% CI [-.52, -.20]), geometry (k = 9, r = -.32, 95% CI [-.46, -.16]), algebra (k = 34,

r = -.23, 95% CI [-.30, -.15]), and statistics knowledge (k = 105, r = -.23, 95% CI [-.28, -.17]).

The omnibus test for the math content area moderator analysis was not statistically significant

(F[7, 327] = 1.40, p = .21), indicating that there were no statistically significant differences in the

relations between math anxiety and math assessments in different math content areas.

Publication bias

The moderator analysis for publication status was statistically significant (F[1, 745] =

12.02, p < .001). There was a significantly stronger negative correlation between math anxiety

and math achievement reported in published studies (k = 520, r = -0.29, 95% CI [-.32, -.27]) than

for unpublished studies (k = 227, r = -0.23, 95% CI [-.25, -.21]).

Visual inspection of the funnel plot of the effect sizes by their standard errors (black dots

in Figure 6), with higher standard errors at the bottom of the plot, indicated that the spread of the

effect sizes was not perfectly symmetrical. Many of the effect sizes were located around and just

to the right of the line denoting the overall average correlation (r = -.28), suggesting that most of

the effect sizes in the meta-analytic sample represent reporting small-to-moderate negative effect

sizes from studies with various sample sizes. A statistically significant Egger test (z = 2.59, p =

.01) confirmed the presence of funnel plot asymmetry. The potential missing studies in the left

42
half of the plot, as shown by the sparseness of effect sizes in that area compared to the right half,

may indicate higher magnitude negative effect sizes from samples of all sizes are missing from

our meta-analytic sample. The trim-and-fill analysis indicated that 129 effect sizes (white dots in

Figure 6), primarily clustered in the left half of the asymmetrical plot, are potentially missing and

needed to fill in the sparse areas of the funnel plot. The result of the trim-and-fill analysis

suggested that, after adjusting the funnel plot to become symmetrical, the adjusted overall

correlation coefficient would remain statistically significant and similar in magnitude to the

original overall correlation coefficient (r = -0.29, p < .001).

Discussion

Math achievement and math anxiety have been studied together for more than half a

century (Dreger & Aiken, 1957). Previous meta-analyses have provided us with some knowledge

about the association between math anxiety and math achievement, specifically that the

association is negative and small-to-moderate, with patterns of high math anxiety often co-

occurring with low math achievement (Hembree, 1990; Ma, 1999). Since the publication of

previous meta-analyses in the 90s, the trend to study these constructs together has continued to

grow. Reviews summarizing the wave of research from more recent years have primarily focused

on examining the potential mechanisms behind the association between math anxiety and math

achievement (Beilock & Maloney, 2015; Foley et al., 2017), leaving a need for an updated and

thorough statistical summary of the work conducted on this relation since the start of the 21st

century. Thus, the aims of the present meta-analysis were to 1) calculate an overall average

weighted effect size based on recent work on the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement and 2) conduct moderator analyses in order to determine whether the magnitude of

43
the correlation differs depending on the demographic characteristics of the sample or the

measures used to assess math anxiety or math achievement.

Overall Average Effect Size

We found an overall average correlation of -.28 across all included samples in our meta-

analysis, indicating that math anxiety and math achievement tend to have a small-to-moderate

negative association. Our findings are similar to the overall average correlation of -.27 found by

Ma (1999) and fall within the range of correlations of -.25 to -.40 reported by Hembree (1990).

Our results also reveal that there is significant heterogeneity in the spread of effect sizes that

estimate the overall relation between math anxiety and math achievement. This suggests that

variability in these effect sizes is due to the inclusion of samples that do not represent a

homogenous population, supporting our methodological choice to conduct random-effects and

mixed-effects models.

Moderators

We found that, after grouping effect sizes by subgroups within our moderators,

significant negative relations between math anxiety and math achievement remained for most of

our subgroups. We also found there were several significant differences in the size of the relation

between subgroups within some moderators. Importantly, although our moderator analyses were

able to provide some valuable information about potential sources of variability in the size of the

effect sizes for the relation between math anxiety and math achievement, the estimates of

heterogeneity for all the moderator analyses indicated that there was still a significant amount of

variance left unexplained. These findings suggest that there may be other factors, like different

levels of working memory (Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016) or motivation

in math (Wang et al., 2015), or a combination of factors including those not currently

44
incorporated in the present study, that may be able to explain remaining variability found in the

correlations included in this meta-analysis. Another important note to consider is that, despite

weighting effect sizes by their standard errors and testing moderators of math assessments and

anxiety scales, there still may be differences in the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement that are due to the inherent differences between large-scale samples with equivalent

and standardized measures (such as the PISA) and small-scale studies that use convenience

samples and often use researcher-developed measures.

Demographic characteristics as moderators.

Gender, race/ethnicity, and continent. It has been hypothesized in some work that the

relation between math anxiety and achievement would be stronger for women than for men

(Aiken, 1970), but that has not been found overall in either the current or previous meta-

analyses. Specifically, Hembree (1990) found the opposite, that males in grades 5 through 12

demonstrated a stronger correlation between math anxiety and math achievement compared to

females in that same age group. Contrary to these findings, we found in the current meta-analysis

that the correlations for gender, when broken down by samples with either 100% male or 100%

female participants, were similar in strength and magnitude, as did Ma (1999). Previous research

has found gender differences in levels of self-reported math anxiety, with greater math anxiety

reported by girls than by boys (Devine, Fawcett, Szűcs, & Dowker, 2012). Small gender

differences have also been found in math achievement during middle childhood and adolescence,

with the slight advantage switching between males and females and depending on the age of the

sample and the type of math assessment (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010). Despite these

differences in levels of math anxiety and math achievement scores separately, our meta-analytic

45
results based on a pooled, diverse sample of studies, found that the association between math

achievement and math anxiety is similar for males and females.

With regard to differences in the math anxiety-math achievement relation among

different racial and ethnic groups, we found similar relations for samples from the United States

made up of 75% or more White participants and samples that consisted of 75% or less White

participants (i.e., majority non-White participants or racially diverse sample). This finding aligns

with the results from Ma’s (1999) meta-analysis where he found similar magnitude correlations

for ethnically homogenous versus ethnically heterogeneous samples. Importantly though, the

present moderation analysis of race and ethnicity differences is subject to certain limitations.

Specifically, the number of effect sizes from different race and ethnic groups was small and only

data from samples within the United States were analyzed. However, given that cultural

differences within racial and ethnic groups vary greatly depending on the specific racial and

ethnic group being studied (Betancourt & López, 1993), it may be that differences in the relation

between math anxiety and math achievement may only arise when looking across a variety of

racial and ethnic groups from different countries rather than examining all minority groups from

only one country. Thus, future work should examine the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement from a variety of racial and ethnic groups from different countries in order to

provide insight on the role of specific cultural practices within a specific racial or ethnic group.

The results of the previously untested moderator of the continent of origin of the study

sample suggest that there are no significant differences in the strength of the relation between

math anxiety and math achievement across the six continents tested in the current paper.

Although some work has found that, overall, the correlation tends to be smaller in magnitude for

samples from Asian countries (i.e., rs = -.12 to -.31) compared to North American and many

46
European countries (i.e., rs = -.26 to -.51, Lee, 2009), this was not found to be the case in the

current paper when testing for differences in effect size magnitude between continents, rather

than between countries. However, as previously noted, cultures and educational systems between

the countries within a continent are very different. We do provide some evidence in our

supplemental analyses that there are differences in the relation at the country- and region-level

within continents, yet many of these overall effect sizes are represented by only one sample.

Although there may not be significant differences in the relation between math anxiety and math

achievement at the continent-level, there is some support for the idea that the correlation varies

depending on the country or region being studied. As such, research to collect more data in a

larger number of samples from different countries is needed in order to gain a more precise

understanding of where around the globe the relation differs and to further study cultural

mechanisms that may be driving these differences.

Grade level. Previous meta-analyses have found significant associations between math

anxiety and achievement for students in grades ranging from grade 4 to college level (Hembree,

1990) but no significant differences in the magnitude of the relation based on grade level (Ma,

1999). In the current meta-analysis, we were able to include data from students in grades as early

as grade 1 all the way up to samples made up of non-student adults. Our findings support

previous work indicating that a significant relation between math anxiety and math achievement

exists throughout different development periods, as well as adding that a significant relation

exists for samples in early childhood and beyond formal schooling in adulthood.

The significant differences we did find between grade level categories in the relation

between math anxiety and math achievement suggest that the magnitude of the association varies

across development. During early elementary school, the relation between math anxiety and

47
achievement is significantly stronger compared to the same relation during high school.

However, some research has found that general anxiety, a factor not considered in the present

meta-analysis, explains the relation found between math anxiety and math achievement in young

children (Dowker et al., 2016; Hill et al., 2016). As such, more work is needed to address and

understand the mechanisms driving the stronger relation found between math anxiety and math

achievement during early childhood.

Our findings also suggest that the relation between math anxiety and math achievement

across grades does not follow a linear trend across development. Specifically, the correlation for

students in grades 3 through 5 was significantly weaker than the relation for students in each of

the other grade categories, with the exception of grades 1 and 2 and postsecondary students. Our

supplemental analyses suggest that the weaker relation could be driven by differences in the

relation between math anxiety and basic number knowledge for students in grades 3 through 5

compared to students in grades 1 and 2 and grades 6 through 8 (Tables S7 and S8). Overall,

future research should consider the math content area as an important factor that may contribute

to grade-level differences, particularly for students in late elementary school, in the math

anxiety–math achievement association.

Moving on from late elementary to middle school, we do see a statistically significant

increase in the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Once students reach high

school, the relation is found to be significantly stronger than that of the relation during late

elementary school. High school students may experience increased pressure to perform well in

school while preparing for selection into postsecondary school entry (Clinedinst & Koranteng,

2017), which could explain this increase in the co-occurrence of high math anxiety with low

math achievement. Postsecondary school students, on the other hand, demonstrate a weaker

48
relation in comparison to students in earlier development. Students who reach postsecondary

education may represent a population of students with higher math achievement that experience

less math anxiety as a result of their higher math ability, potentially reducing the strength of the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement at that point in development.

Finally, we found that the relation does not disappear for non-student samples. Instead,

the magnitude of the correlation is equivalent to the correlation for students in most of the other

grade levels, with the exception of postsecondary school students, who demonstrate a weaker

relation between math anxiety and math achievement than do non-student adults. This overall

finding suggests a need for more research to further understand how the association between

math anxiety and math achievement develops from childhood to adulthood.

It is important to note that the grade levels we coded in this study are based on the ages

typically included in grade levels within the United States, and therefore these grades may differ

internationally. In addition, some samples represented participants across a wide age range

spanning across multiple grade level categories, yet we coded these groups into one category that

matched with the average age.

Teachers. With regard to pre-service and practicing teacher samples, we found that

studies examining these samples reported significant correlations between math anxiety and

math achievement, on average. In addition to the significant correlations found for non-student

adult samples, these findings further emphasize why it is important to study this relation after

high school graduation; clearly, this association is not a phenomenon that develops and then

disappears once people have graduated from primary and secondary school. Future work should

not only aim to create and implement interventions geared toward math anxiety or math

achievement for student samples, but they may also explore the implementation of these

49
interventions to non-student adults and teachers. Furthermore, there is some work suggesting that

students majoring in elementary education have higher math anxiety than people in other college

majors (Hembree, 1990), and that this math anxiety can influence their students’ beliefs and

math achievement (Beilock et al., 2010). Importantly, we did not find the relation between math

anxiety and math achievement to be significantly different between teacher and non-teacher

samples. Though teachers have become a focus of research due to higher levels of anxiety, their

anxiety does not appear to be more or less related to their math performance compared to other

segments of the population.

Students with low math ability. For the moderator analyses for low math ability samples,

we did find a significant difference in the relation between math anxiety and math achievement

for samples selected for low math ability compared to those not selected. Specifically, samples

selected for low math ability had weaker, although still significant, associations than did samples

not selected for low math ability. These findings are contrary to some work extending the deficit

model of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement to populations with math

learning disabilities (Lai, Zhu, Chen, & Li, 2015; Wu, Wilcutt, Escovar, & Menon, 2014).

Instead, we find that, overall, the achievement of samples with low math ability is less related to

math anxiety than it is for those samples that represent a wider range of math ability. Of course,

it is important to note that the range of math achievement for many of these selected samples is

typically restricted due to the cutoffs used for selection, and as such a stronger relation may not

be as clear as it is for samples with more variability in their math achievement. In sum, more

work needs to be done to better understand the weaker relations found for samples selected for

low math ability compared to samples representing a larger range of math ability.

50
 Measure characteristics as moderators.

Math anxiety scales. With regard to the scales used to measure math anxiety, Ma (1999)

previously found that the relations with math achievement did not significantly differ when using

the MARS compared to a non-MARS measure. However, the 37 studies included in Ma’s (1999)

meta-analysis represented only six individual math anxiety instruments. A number of new scales

to measure math anxiety have emerged since then, and therefore we were able to test for effect

size differences between scales that were developed to measure math anxiety separately in

children and in adolescents and adults. Although some studies utilized child-, adolescent-, or

adult-oriented measures in samples other than the age group they were intended for, creating

separate variables for child as well as adolescent and adult anxiety measures allowed us to

account for a majority of the confounding effect of age.

Overall, we found that math anxiety had a significant relation with math achievement for

all math anxiety scale groups coded in this meta-analysis for children, adolescents, and adults.

For the six child math anxiety scales, our results suggested that a similar relation can be expected

with math achievement no matter which child math anxiety scale is used.

However, for adolescent and adult math anxiety scales, we found that several measures,

specifically the group made up of MARS-based scales and one-item scales, had significantly

weaker relations with math achievement than did the PISA math anxiety scale, the Fennema

Sherman Math Anxiety Scale (FSMAS), the Achievement Emotion Questionnaire Math Anxiety

Scale (AEQ), and the Math Anxiety Scale by Betz (MAS [Betz]; 1988). On the one hand, the

one-item scale may not tap enough into specific math situations (due to only being one item

rather than having a range of situations from multiple items) to consistently be associated with

math achievement. On the other hand, scales like the original 98-item MARS may have way too

51
many items that may lead to poor data quality and similarly reduce the potential association that

math anxiety can have with math achievement. The MARS category in the current paper,

however, includes shorter MARS-based measures also, like the MARS-revised (Plake & Parker,

1982) and the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (Hopko et al., 2003); thus, the number of items

may not fully explain the differences. It could also be that another one of the moderators we

tested, specifically the components of math anxiety, plays a role in the differences found in the

relations between math achievement and these scales (results discussed in next section).

However, none of the math anxiety scales that were stronger (i.e., PISA, AEQ, FSMAS, MAS

[Betz]) or weaker (i.e., MARS-based, one item) were consistently in any of the categories that

we coded for in the components of math anxiety variable. Thus, the reason for the differences

found here still remains an unanswered question. Overall, future research is needed to investigate

these and other potential reasons why differences exist in the relations between math

achievement and scores on these adolescent and adult math anxiety scales.

We also found that math anxiety scales assessing anxiety in the broader subject of math

were significantly more related to math achievement than scales assessing anxiety in statistics.

This finding suggests that the relation between math anxiety and math achievement is different

depending on the math content of the anxiety scale. However, we also found that math anxiety

topic is a significant moderator only in the case of assessments testing non-statistics math content

(i.e., more related to math anxiety scales that to statistics anxiety scales). Statistics anxiety and

math anxiety were similarly related to math achievement when the assessment was testing

statistics content. These findings indicate that the content of the math assessment is also an

important moderator of this relation, with the content of statistics playing a role in whether we

52
find differences in the relation between math achievement and broader math anxiety scales

compared to the relation between math achievement and statistics-specific anxiety scales.

Components of math anxiety. With regard to the moderator of components of math

anxiety, one might have expected that the strongest correlation would be between math

evaluation anxiety and math achievement, because math achievement was primarily represented

by math tests in this meta-analysis and the component of math evaluation anxiety specifically

targets the situation of a math test. However, we found stronger relations between math

achievement and the cognitive worry component of math anxiety compared to those effect sizes

measuring math anxiety through the single component of math evaluation and through both

components of math evaluation and learning anxiety. The relation with math achievement was

also stronger with math anxiety measured as math learning anxiety than those relations measured

with both components of math evaluation and learning anxiety. This suggests that the negative

relation between math anxiety and math achievement is stronger, at least when compared to

items that ask about testing or testing and both learning situations in math, when the anxiety

items ask about negative expectations and self-deprecating thoughts related to math stimuli or

situations or when they ask about the process of learning in math. The stronger correlations

found with the worry component of anxiety provide some evidence for the attentional control

theory. This theory hypothesizes that, in a math context, anxious thoughts and worry take up

limited cognitive resources that are needed to complete a math-related task, which subsequently

reduces both efficiency and accuracy on the task (Eysenck et al., 2007).

Math assessments. Regarding math achievement measures, a previous meta-analysis

found weaker relations between math anxiety and commercially-developed and

psychometrically-validated assessments than between math anxiety and researcher-made

53
achievement measures and math teachers’ grades (Ma, 1999). This finding is unexpected when

considering other work that shows that greater levels of anxiety are more often associated with

high-stakes testing (Cassady & Johnson, 2002), which would fit into the psychometrically-

validated test group from Ma’s (1999) meta-analysis. In the present meta-analysis, we were able

to expand on the types of math assessments to include high-stakes standardized testing situations,

standardized tests used for research, non-standardized research tests, math course grades, and

math exam grades.

Similar to the previous meta-analysis, we found significant relations between math

anxiety and each of these types of math assessments; however, the moderator effect we found

was different from that found in the 1999 meta-analysis. We were able to separate what the 1999

meta-analysis considered to be an “other” category into three categories of non-standardized

researcher-made math assessments, exam grades, and math course grades (or math GPA). We

found that the relation was weaker between math anxiety and math exam grades compared to the

relations between math anxiety and standardized measures for research and between math

anxiety and non-standard researcher made measures. In other words, the relation between math

achievement and math anxiety was significantly stronger, and more negative, when the

achievement measure consisted of standardized tests used for research and non-standardized

research-made compared to when the math assessment consisted of a math test or exam that were

not high-stakes and mostly math class-level exams. Our lack of significant findings with regard

to the high-stakes math tests subgroup also opposes the notion that, specifically with math-

related tests, high-stakes exams are more related with math anxiety than other forms of math

assessments. We find that the relation between math anxiety and high-stakes exams is similar to

the relation between math anxiety and other types of math tests.

54
 These findings have implications for education practitioners, parents, and researchers

alike. For educators, knowing that the relation between math achievement and math anxiety is

consistently weaker when the math assessment consists of a math exam that is often encountered

in a regular classroom setting may be useful when preparing curriculum and using class math

tests as sources of math knowledge that are less related with the math anxiety that a student may

have. For parents, the weaker relation can also provide some relief for the various types of math

assessments they encounter throughout the school year. For researchers investigating the math

anxiety-math achievement association in lab studies and experiments, this finding suggests that

results from lab experiments and research projects are more likely to find stronger relations with

math anxiety than when using math exam grades as measures of math achievement. Thus, it may

be beneficial for researchers to know ahead of time that the relation between math anxiety and

math achievement may be different depending on the measure of achievement they decide to use,

whether it be already available exam grades provided by teachers or whether they decide to

collect their own math achievement data.

Math content. In the final moderation analysis based on measure characteristics, we

tested whether the math content area of the math achievement measure was a moderator of the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Hembree (1990) had previously reported

significant relations, but did not test for differences in the relations, between math anxiety and a

variety of math content areas, such as computation, math concepts, problem solving, abstract

reasoning, and spatial ability for students in grade 7, high school, and postsecondary school. In

the present analysis, we tested the relations between math anxiety and math achievement for

assessments testing knowledge in a single content area for samples representing a wider grade

level range than previously tested (i.e., grade 1 students through non-student adults). Our results

55
indicated that there are significant negative correlations between math anxiety and most types of

single-content math assessments, with the exception of the content area of approximate number

system (ANS: r = -.09; other areas: rs ranged from -.20 to -.38).

We did not find evidence that math content area moderated the relation with math

anxiety. Our supplemental analyses did suggest that there are grade-level differences for certain

math content areas, but this is not the case when taking all grade levels into account. Some

theories, such as the attentional control theory described earlier in this paper, have suggested that

math anxiety disrupts cognitive resources such as working memory during achievement tasks

(Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calco, 2007). Some previous research also indicates that math

anxiety has negative consequences with complex math that requires greater use of cognitive

resources (Ashcraft, 2002); however, our current findings suggest that the relation is similar

across math content areas, whether they measure achievement in more basic math knowledge or

more advanced content.

Publication Bias

Publication bias was assessed in the present meta-analysis in order to examine whether

there is a tendency to publish stronger effect sizes compared to weak ones and whether the

available effect sizes included in our meta-analytic samples are representative of the true effect

size or skewed due to missing studies (i.e., the “file drawer problem”; Rosenthal, 1979). Previous

work has found that published studies reported weaker correlation between math anxiety and

math achievement than did unpublished studies, which suggests an unexpected “positive

publication bias” (Ma, 1999). In the current meta-analysis, we found the opposite to be the case,

where effect sizes published in peer-reviewed journals were significantly stronger than the effect

sizes reported in unpublished and grey literature. This finding supports the typical pattern of

56
“negative” publication bias, in which smaller effect sizes and non-significant findings tend to not

be published.

Additionally, our funnel plot and Egger test results indicate the presence of a skew

against large effect sizes for all sample sizes in the distribution of the included effect sizes within

the meta-analytic sample. The trim-and-fill method results further suggest that there are effect

sizes missing and that inclusion of those effect sizes would produce a statistically significant,

moderate, and negative adjusted overall effect size, similar to the original effect size reported

here. Based on all of our publication indices, although the file drawer problem is an issue, our

average weighted effect size is not significantly impacted by the potentially missing studies.

Moreover, previous work has suggested that the trim-and-fill method should be used as a

sensitivity analysis instead of an index of publication bias (Peters et al., 2007). It is unknown

whether publication bias is the only cause of funnel plot asymmetry; often meta-analyses with

large between-study heterogeneity in their effect sizes are due to tested or untested moderators.

In these cases, use of the trim-and-fill method underestimates the true effect size when there is

no publication bias. Overall, the publication bias evidenced by our indices is likely not a critical

issue that would negatively impact the interpretation or significance of our main meta-analytic

results.

Connections with Recent Work

One important note to mention is that, simultaneous to us working on this meta-analysis,

two other research groups worked on and subsequently published meta-analyses of the relation

between math anxiety and math performance (Namkung, Peng, & Lin, 2019; Zhang, Zhao, &

Kong, 2019). There are some key differences in the search strategies, inclusion and exclusion

criteria, and effect size extraction techniques between these two recently published meta-

57
analyses and the present one that should be mentioned. In general, our study was more thorough

and inclusive, as we chose to include adult samples, include unpublished data, and conduct

author queries for missing information. This led us to have many more effect sizes (k = 747)

compared to Zhang et al. (k = 84) and Namkung et al. (k = 478). Despite these differences, the

main findings were generally similar across studies, suggesting that we are homing in on the

magnitude of the relation between math anxiety and achievement. Our overall correlation was -

.28 compared to a correlation of -.31 in Zhang et al. and -.34 in Namkung et al. An investigation

of the articles included across the meta-analyses shows a lot of overlap, suggesting that we did

not miss research included in these other studies. Therefore, our study makes an important

unique contribution to this literature, while also being generally consistent with the findings of

these other research groups.

Limitations

Although meta-analyses provide an opportunity to aggregate a large number of effect

sizes from many studies that assess relevant factors, which then increases the power to draw

more accurate, statistically-driven conclusions about the relations, the current set of analyses is

not exhaustive in explaining the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. One

limitation of a meta-analysis that considers only the zero-order correlation is that other relevant

factors that may account for the relation, such as test anxiety (Devine et al., 2012) or math

confidence (Hembree, 1990), are not examined in conjunction with the variables of interest.

Thus, there may be confounding variables we do not account for that are influencing the relations

we found between math anxiety and math achievement.

Another limitation is that any unexplained variance that remains in the accumulated

effect sizes after accounting for all moderators tested suggests that there are other study factors,

58
not included in the meta-analysis, that may also moderate the relation tested. For example,

environmental factors, such as math activities done in the home (del Rio, Susperreguy, Strasser,

& Salinas, 2017), have been previously highlighted as potentially important moderators of the

relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Although many of the reasons posited to

explain the significant moderators require direct testing through studies beyond a meta-analysis,

additional work is needed to better explain the factors that influence the strength of the relation

between math anxiety and math achievement.

Additionally, this study is limited to the relation between the emotion of anxiety in math

and achievement. However, the study of the relations between different emotions and math

achievement and how it differs from the relation between math anxiety and math achievement

may also be an important gap to fill for future meta-analytic work.

Meta-analyses are dependent on the quality of the studies that are included in them,

particularly because they rely on effect size parameters from studies that vary in the rigor of their

study designs (Gersten, Baker, & Lloyd, 2000). Thus, another limitation of this meta-analysis is

that the quality of the included studies was not examined as a moderator. There are instruments

that have been previously developed to measure quality of reviews (Oxman & Guyatt, 1991),

which have been used as templates for researchers to assess study quality in a meta-analysis

(Downs & Black, 1998). Future meta-analyses on this topic should consider study quality as an

important potential moderator.

There were also some limitations related to our search strategy and timeline. The search

was done for articles available or published between January of 1992 through May of 2018.

Thus, we may be missing studies that have been published since our last search that may impact

the findings reported in our meta-analysis. Importantly though, we did solicit effect sizes from

59
unpublished and ongoing studies from researchers in the area and were able to include 26

additional effect sizes from unpublished data that may have been published in the interim

between our last search and our writing up of the results. Second, the search terms and databases

used may not be expansive or broad enough to capture all available and relevant articles.

Specifically, relevant studies, may have been missing due to the narrowness of the search terms

used (i.e., math anxiety versus anxiety). While the results may still be generalizable, it is

important to consider that there are likely some missing effect sizes that may be relevant for

understanding the relation between math anxiety and math achievement.

An additional issue with our search strategy is the omission of the OECD (2013) report

containing PISA 2012 data. PISA is a large international effort to gauge achievement levels

every four years from over 510,000 high school students from 65 countries (OECD, 2013). The

PISA 2012 data were published in a 2013 report, but this report was not found in the three

journal databases we searched and therefore we did not include it in our sample. However, we

did include effect sizes from previous PISA years and a few country’s effect sizes from PISA

2012 when empirical studies contained these effect sizes (i.e., Lee, 2013; Thien & Ong, 2015).

The PISA 2012 sample consists of 15-year old students, and their average correlation across

countries was -.34, which is the same magnitude of the correlation for high school students in the

present study. This suggests the findings from our meta-analysis would likely not change with

the inclusion of all PISA 2012 results. This suggests the findings from our meta-analysis would

likely not change with the inclusion of all PISA 2012 results.

Another limitation of the current meta-analysis is related to the low response rate by

contacted authors for correlation information from potentially included studies. We sent first- or

corresponding-authors email requests for correlation coefficient information for almost 200

60
studies, but the response rate was only 35%. The date criteria we chose extended as far back as

1992, and many researchers had likely moved from their original institutions or changed their

originally listed email addresses by the time they were contacted. We opted to email authors

rather than contact them through other modes of communication, which may have impacted the

response rate. Although the response rate was low, the trim-and-fill analysis indicated that even

if we were to uncover the file drawer problem and add 130 missing studies to fill in the

unrepresented areas of our funnel plot, this addition would not have impacted the magnitude of

the average correlation we found in our meta-analysis.

Additionally, the inter-rater reliabilities for two variables had lower-than-desired values

(<80%; sample size: 72%; number of effect sizes: 75%). One reason for the low inter-rater

reliability was because of the challenge of accurately coding information from experimental

studies, specifically for control and experimental groups, separately. Some other reasons include

one coder not finding the sample size in the paper and listing it as needing an author query, one

coder reporting the full sample and the other coder reporting the analytic sample for that effect

size, and true coding errors. Importantly though, a large number of the codes from experimental

studies required an author query and thus the number of effect sizes and sample size variables

were subsequently checked by the first author, which may help to increase the overall inter-rater

reliability for these variables.

Finally, many of the effect sizes in our meta-analytic sample come from small

convenience samples. Additionally, many of the samples are from Western countries (N =

626/744; 84%) and college students (N = 355/750; 47%). This minimal diversity and lack of

representativeness are a limitation of our meta-analytic results, specifically for the race and

ethnicity and continent moderator analyses we were able to conduct and present in this paper.

61
Research on the relation between math anxiety and math achievement needs to continue to seek

out more diverse and more representative samples to fully understand whether there are truly

varying associations between math anxiety and math achievement for certain moderators.

Implications

In the ever-evolving sectors of education, researchers, teachers, and education policy-

makers must constantly stay updated on the factors related to math achievement. Moreover, the

implications of this relation during childhood and adolescence on future career and educational

pathways is significant for both individuals’ career successes and society’s needs of a larger

STEM workforce (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wang & Degol, 2013). Math anxiety has been

previously implicated as an important factor related to math achievement (Hembree, 1990; Ma,

1999). The present meta-analysis provides further support for the importance of the co-

occurrence of math anxiety and math achievement. This relation is critical for people of all ages,

a diverse set of demographics, and for different scale and assessment characteristics.

These current findings inform the development and implementation of interventions that

aim to reduce math anxiety and/or increase math achievement. Previous experimental work has

investigated the effectiveness of strategies such as writing periods prior to a math task (Park,

Ramirez, & Beilock, 2014) or reappraisal of anxiety (Jamieson, Mendes, Blackstock, &

Schmader, 2010) to reduce math anxiety. Other work has focused on reducing the math

achievement-math anxiety link by targeting math problem solving through cognitive tutoring

(Supekar, Iuculano, Chen, & Menon, 2015). Importantly, the present work indicates that the

association is prevalent in children as young as students in grade 1. Thus, interventions such as

those just described may be prudent for students as young as those in early elementary and could

62
target anxiety or achievement in content areas as foundational as basic number knowledge and

whole number calculations.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis provides an updated summary of the association between math

anxiety and math achievement and moderators of the relation. We found that a small-to-moderate

negative association is evident and robust for students as young as grades 1 and 2 all the way to

up to non-student adults. These significant, small-to-moderate relations are evident across all

types of math content areas, with the exception of content measuring the approximate number

system. The strength of the relation with math achievement differs depending on the math

anxiety scale used and the math topic that the anxiety scale asks about, a finding that can inform

the choice of math anxiety scales for future research. Finally, the relation between math anxiety

and math achievement is stronger for samples that are not selected for low math ability compared

to samples that are selected for low math ability, providing some evidence against current

research suggesting that samples selected for low math ability tend to have stronger relations

between their achievement in math and of math anxiety. Overall, this work has both theoretical

implications for current theories explaining the math anxiety math achievement and practical

implications that will advise the future development of effective interventions to lower math

anxiety, reduce its relation with math achievement, and improve math achievement in the long

run.

63
 References

*References with effect sizes included in the present meta-analysis

**References with effect sizes of unpublished manuscripts or raw data at the time of request for
unpublished literature included in the present meta-analysis

*Abu-Hilal, M. M. (2000). A structural model for predicting mathematics achievement: Its

relation with anxiety and self-concept in mathematics. Psychological Reports, 86(3), 835-
847. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.835

*Ader, E., & Erktin, E. (2010). Coping as self-regulation of anxiety: A model for math
achievement in high-stakes tests. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 14(4), 311-332.

*Agus, M., Penna, M. P., Peró-Cebollero, M., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., & Pessa, E. (2016).
Investigating the probabilistic reasoning in verbal–numerical and graphical–pictorial
formats in relation to cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions: The proposal of a model.
Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 44-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.003Get

Ahmed, W. (2018). Developmental trajectories of math anxiety during adolescence: Associations

with STEM career choice. Journal of Adolescence, 67, 158-166. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.010

Aiken Jr, L. R. (1970). Attitudes toward mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 40(4),
551-596. doi: 10.3102/00346543040004551

*Aoude, S. G. (2013). Factors affecting the performance of students in university remedial

mathematics courses (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University).

*Ariapooran, S. (2017). Mathematics motivation, anxiety, and Pprformance in female deaf/hard-

of-hearing and hearing students. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 38(3), 172-178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116681271

**Arias, J. M. (2016). Replication of study 2 in “Is math anxiety always bad for math learning?
The role of math motivation” by Wang, Z., Lukowski, S.L., Hart, S.A., Lyons, I.M.,
Thompson, L.A., Kovas, Y., Mazzocco, M.M., Plomin, R. & Petrill, S.A. (2015,
Psychological Science). Unpublished manuscript.

Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive

consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181-185. doi:
10.1111/1467-8721.00196

64
Ashcraft, M. H., Kirk, E. P., & Hopko, D. (1998). On the cognitive consequences of mathematics
anxiety. In C. Donlan (Ed.), Studies in Developmental Psychology. The Development of
Mathematical Skills (pp. 175-196). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis
(UK).

Ashcraft, M. H., Krause, J. A., and Hopko, D. (2007). Is math anxiety a mathematical learning
disability? In D. B. Berch and M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why Is Math So Hard For
Some Children? The Nature and Origins of Mathematical Learning Difficulties and
Disabilities (pp. 329-348). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

*Auxter, A. E. (2016). The problem with word problems: An exploratory study of factors related
to word problem success. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University).

*Ayotola, A., & Adedeji, T. (2009). The relationship between gender, age, mental ability,
anxiety, mathematics self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics. Cypriot journal of
educational sciences, 4(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.169

*Bai, H. (2011). Cross-validating a bidimensional mathematics anxiety scale. Assessment, 18(1),

115-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110364312

Bai, H., Wang, L., Pan, W., & Frey, M. (2009). Measuring mathematics anxiety: Psychometric
analysis of a bidimensional affective scale. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3),
185-193.

*Baloğlu, M. (2002). An application of structural equation modeling techniques in the prediction

of statistics anxiety among college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Agricultural
and Mechanical University).

Baloğlu, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of the statistics anxiety rating scale. Psychological
Reports, 90(1), 315-325. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2002.90.1.315

*Bandalos, D. L., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (1995). Effects of math self-concept,
perceived self-efficacy, and attributions for failure and success on test anxiety. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.611

*Bangert, A. W. (1995). Peer assessment: an instructional strategy for effectively implementing

performance-based assessments (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).

**Barner, D., Alvarez, G., Sullivan, J., Brooks, N., Srinivasan, M., & Frank, M. C. (2016).
Learning mathematics in a visuospatial format: A randomized, controlled trial of mental
abacus instruction. Raw data.

**Barner, D., Athanasopoulou, A., Chu, J., Lewis, M., Marchand, E., Schneider, R., & Frank, M.
(2016). A one-year classroom-randomized trial of mental abacus instruction for first- and
second-grade students. Raw data.

65
**Barroso, C., Ganley, C.M., & Hart, S.A. (2017). Psychology majors study cohort 2. Raw data.

**Barroso, C., Ganley, C.M., & Hart, S.A., Clendinning, J., Rogers, N. (2018). Undergraduate
music theory majors sample. Raw data.

*Batchelor, J. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of the effects of clicker use on math anxiety and
achievement in mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University).

*Beasley, T. M., Long, J. D., & Natali, M. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of the
mathematics anxiety scale for children. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 34(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069019

Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math
anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107(5), 1860-1863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910967107

Beilock, S. L., & Maloney, E. A. (2015). Math anxiety: A factor in math achievement not to be
ignored. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 4-12. doi:
10.1177/2372732215601438

**Benedict, M. (2017). The Effect of Gender on Math Anxiety: How adults think they feel versus
how they actually feel. Unpublished manuscript.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B
(Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.

*Bessant, K. C. (2000). Affective and cognitive components of statistics course performance.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba).

Betancourt, H., & López, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American
psychology. American Psychologist, 48(6), 629-637. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.629

Betz, N. (1978). Prevalence, distribution and correlates of math anxiety in college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 551-558. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.25.5.441

*Birenbaum, M., & Eylath, S. (1994). Who is afraid of statistics? Correlates of statistics anxiety
among students of educational sciences. Educational Research, 36(1), 93-98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188940360110

*Birgin, O., Baloğlu, M., Çatlıoğlu, H., & Gürbüz, R. (2010). An investigation of mathematics
anxiety among sixth through eighth grade students in Turkey. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(6), 654-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.006

66
*Bisse, W. H. (1995). Mathematics anxiety: A multi-method study of causes and effects with
community college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University).

*Bosmans, G., & De Smedt, B. (2015). Insecure attachment is associated with math anxiety in
middle childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1596.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01596

**Braham, E.J., & Libertus, M.E. (2016). When Approximate Number Acuity Predicts Math
Performance: The moderating role of math anxiety. Unpublished manuscript.

*Buelow, M. T., & Barnhart, W. R. (2017). The influence of math anxiety, math performance,
worry, and test anxiety on the Iowa gambling task and balloon analogue risk
task. Assessment, 24(1), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115602554

*Buelow, M. T., & Frakey, L. L. (2013). Math anxiety differentially affects WAIS-IV arithmetic
performance in undergraduates. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(4), 356-362.
https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/act006

*Bull, H. (2009). Identifying maths anxiety in student nurses and focusing remedial work.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 71-81. doi:
10.1080/03098770802638689

*Canu, W. H., Elizondo, M., & Broman-Fulks, J. J. (2017). History of ADHD traits related to
general test and specific math anxiety in college students. Learning and Individual
Differences, 58, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.008

Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szücs, D. (2016). The chicken or the egg? The direction of the
relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 1987. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01987

Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szűcs, D. (2017). The modified abbreviated math anxiety
scale: A valid and reliable instrument for use with children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00011

*Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2017). How is anxiety related to math
performance in young students? A longitudinal study of Grade 2 to Grade 3
children. Cognition and Emotion, 31(4), 755-764. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2016.1147421

*Casad, B. J., Hale, P., & Wachs, F. L. (2015). Parent-child math anxiety and math-gender
stereotypes predict adolescents' math education outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
1597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01597

67
*Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in
mathematics college entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized
beliefs and anxieties. Developmental psychology, 33(4), 669-680.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.4.669

Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295. doi:
10.1006/ceps.2001.1094

*Catapano, M. (2013). Tenth-grade high school students' mathematical self-efficacy,

mathematics anxiety, attitudes toward mathematics, and performance on the New York
State Integrated Algebra Regents Examination. (Doctoral Dissertation, Dowling
College).

*Çatlıoğlu, H., Gürbüz, R., & Birgin, O. (2014). Do pre-service elementary school teachers still
have mathematics anxiety? Some factors and correlates. Bolema: Boletim de Educação
Matemática, 28(48), 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v28n48a06

Catsambis, S. (1994). The path to math: Gender and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics
participation from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education, 67, 199-215.
doi: 10.2307/2112791

Caviola, S., Mammarella, I. C., Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2012). The involvement of
working memory in children’s exact and approximate mental addition. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 141-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.02.005

*Caviola, S., Primi, C., Chiesi, F., & Mammarella, I. C. (2017). Psychometric properties of the
Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS) in Italian primary school children. Learning
and Individual Differences, 55, 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.006

*Cheema, J. R., & Sheridan, K. (2015). Time spent on homework, mathematics anxiety and
mathematics achievement: Evidence from a US sample. Issues in Educational
Research, 25(3), 246-259.

*Cheung, K. C. (2017). The effects of resilience in learning variables on mathematical literacy

performance: a study of learning characteristics of the academic resilient and advantaged
low achievers in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. Educational
Psychology, 37(8), 965-982. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1194372

*Chiesi, F., & Primi, C. (2010). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to students' statistics
achievement. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 6-26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911404985

68
*Chiesi, F., Primi, C., & Carmona, J. (2011). Measuring statistics anxiety: Cross-country validity
of the Statistical Anxiety Scale (SAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(6),
559-569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01833

Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., Timmer, J. D., Makowski, M. B., & Miller, E. K. (2016). Have
gender gaps in math closed? Achievement, teacher perceptions, and learning behaviors
across two ECLS-K cohorts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1-19. doi: 10.1177/2332858416673617

*Cipora, K., Szczygieł, M., Willmes, K., & Nuerk, H. C. (2015). Math anxiety assessment with
the abbreviated math anxiety scale: applicability and usefulness: insights from the polish
adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1833. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01833

Clinedinst, M., & Koranteng, A. M. (2017). State of college admission.

*Coates, J. D. (1998). Mathematics anxiety and its relationship to students' perceived teacher
and parent attitudes toward mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University).

Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics

10(1), 101-129. doi: 10.2307/3001666

Cohn, L. D., & Becker, B. J. (2003). How meta-analysis increases statistical

power. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 243-253. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.243

**Conlon, R., Hicks, A., Barroso, C., & Ganley, C. M. (2018). Anxiety Timing Study. Raw data.

*Cook, R. P. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between mathematics anxiety level and
perceptual learning style of adult learners in a community college setting. (Doctoral
dissertation, Florida Atlantic University).

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The Handbook of Research
Synthesis and Meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.

Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women's Success in
Engineering and Computing. American Association of University Women. 1111
Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

*Cortina, J. M. (1995). On the meaning and measurement of test appropriateness. (Doctoral

dissertation, Michigan State University).

*D'Aloisio, B. E. (2016). Investigating predictors of academic success in a foundational

business mathematics course. (Doctoral dissertation, Rhode Island College).

*Daches Cohen, L., & Rubinsten, O. (2017). Mothers, intrinsic math motivation, arithmetic
skills, and math anxiety in elementary school. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1939.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01939

69
*Davis, M. M. (2009). An exploration of factors affecting the academic success of students in a
college quantitative business course. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University).

del Río, M. F., Susperreguy, M. I., Strasser, K., & Salinas, V. (2017). Distinct Influences of
Mothers and Fathers on Kindergartners’ Numeracy Performance: The Role of Math
Anxiety, Home Numeracy Practices, and Numeracy Expectations. Early Education and
Development, 28(8), 939-955. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2017.1331662
Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E., & Szűcs, D. (2018). Cognitive and emotional math problems
largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and mathematics
anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 431-444. doi: 10.1037/edu0000222

*Devine, A., Fawcett, K., Szűcs, D., & Dowker, A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics
anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test
anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8(33). doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-8-33

*Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E., & Szűcs, D. (2018). Cognitive and emotional math problems
largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and mathematics
anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 431-444.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000222

*Donelle, L. (2007). Risk Comprehension of Online Colorectal Cancer Information: An

Assessment of Health Numeracy. (Thesis Manuscript, University of Waterloo)

**Douglas, H., & LeFevre, J. (2016). Modeling Relations Between Math Anxiety and Cognition:
Limited evidence for a cognitive deficits hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript.

Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: what have I learned in 60
years?. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 508. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508

Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of
the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care
interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52(6), 377-384. doi:
10.1136/jech.52.6.377

Dreger, R. M., & Aiken Jr, L. R. (1957). The identification of number anxiety in a college
population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(6), 344-351. doi: 10.1037/h0045894

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and
adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463. doi:
10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

*Dutko, J. A. (2015). Understanding mathematics anxiety: The relationships between fourth

grade students' math anxiety, multiplication fact fluency, and problem solving
ability (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University).

70
Education Commission of the States (2018). 50-State Comparison: State Kindergarten Through
Third Grade Policies, retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/kindergarten-policies/.

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by
a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315(7109), 629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender
differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103-127.
doi: 10.1037/a0018053

Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and
achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 37(3), 293-309. doi: 10.1177/0361684313480694

Engelhard, G. (1990). Math anxiety, mother's education, and the mathematics performance of
adolescent boys and girls: Evidence from the United States and Thailand. The Journal of
Psychology, 124(3), 289-298. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1990.10543224

*Erturan, S., & Jansen, B. (2015). An investigation of boys’ and girls’ emotional experience of
math, their math performance, and the relation between these variables. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(4), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-
0248-7

Espino, M., Pereda, J., Recon, J., Perculeza, E., & Umali, C. (2017). Mathematics anxiety and its
impact on the course and career choice of grade 11 students. International Journal of
Education, Psychology and Counselling, 2, 99-119.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency
theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6(6), 409-434. doi: 10.1080/02699939208409696

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336. doi: 10.1037/1528-
3542.7.2.336

Fan, X., Chen, M., & Matsumoto, A. R. (1997). Gender differences in mathematics achievement:
Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 65(3), 229-242. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1997.9943456

*Fannin-Carroll, K. D. (2014). The Effect of Math Anxiety on the Academic Success of

Developmental Mathematics Students at a Texas Community College. (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University).

*Farnsworth Jr., D. M. (2009). Math Performance as a Function of Math Anxiety and Arousal
Performance Theory. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota).

71
*Farquharson, F. (2004). A comparison of community college students' anxiety, motivation, and
achievement in two learning models for teaching developmental algebra: Instructor-
directed computer-mediated model and traditional lecture model. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Florida).

*Faust, M. W., Ashcraft, M.H., & Fleck, D.E. (1996). Mathematics anxiety effects in simple and
complex addition. Mathematical Cognition, 2(1), 25-62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/135467996387534

*Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2014). Students' Perceptions of Emotional and Instrumental
Teacher Support: Relations with Motivational and Emotional Responses. International
Education Studies, 7(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n1p21

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales:

Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females
and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324-326. doi:
10.2307/748467

*Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept:
Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and individual differences, 19(4), 499-
505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.004

*Finney, S. J., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics

courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 161-186. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00015-2

**Foley, A. (2015). Visuospatial working memory and arithmetic strategies. Unpublished

manuscript.

Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2017).
The math anxiety-performance link: A global phenomenon. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 26(1), 52-58. doi: 10.1177/0963721416672463

*Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless” issue? A
control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards
mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173468

*Gan, S. K. E., Lim, K. M. J., & Haw, Y. X. (2016). The relaxation effects of stimulative and
sedative music on mathematics anxiety: A perception to physiology model. Psychology of
Music, 44(4), 730-741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615590430

**Ganley, C.M. (2014). Test framing study. Raw data.

72
**Ganley, C. M., & Hart, S. A. (2017). Common Core Paper. Raw data.

*Ganley, C. M., & McGraw, A. L. (2016). The development and validation of a revised version
of the math anxiety scale for young children. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1181.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01181

**Ganley, C. M., Conlon, R., McGraw, A. L., Barroso, C., & Geer, E. A. (2016). Anxiety
Intervention Study. Raw data.

*Ganley, C. M., & Vasilyeva, M. (2011). Sex differences in the relation between math
performance, spatial skills, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(4), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.001

**Gashaj, & Roebers (2015). Mathematics and Motor Study. Unpublished Manuscript.

**Geer, E. A., & Ganley, C. M. (2017). Spatial and social project. Raw data.

*Gibson-Dee, K. A. (2016). Hope, expectation, math anxiety, and achievement in college

algebra students: Examining an instructional strategy using multi-level modeling.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida).

Gierl, M. J., & Bisanz, J. (1995). Anxieties and attitudes related to mathematics in grades 3 and
6. The Journal of experimental education, 63(2), 139-158.

Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special
education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 2-18.
doi: 10.1177/002246690003400101

**Gilligan, Thomas, & Farran (2016). Mathematics in the Primary Years: The role of
dispositional factors. Unpublished Manuscript.

*Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience
more anxiety in mathematics?. doi: Psychological science, 24(10), 2079-2087.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486989

*González, A., Rodríguez, Y., Faílde, J. M., & Carrera, M. V. (2016). Anxiety in the statistics
class: Structural relations with self-concept, intrinsic value, and engagement in two
samples of undergraduates. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 214-221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.019

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Furner, J. M., Vásquez-Colina, M. D., & Morris, J. D. (2017). Pre-
service elementary teachers' achievement goals and their relationship to math
anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 60, 40-45. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2017.10.002

73
*Gorvine, B. J., & Smith, H. D. (2015). Predicting student success in a psychological statistics
course emphasizing collaborative learning. Teaching of Psychology, 42(1), 56-59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314562679

Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Guerin, D. W. (2007).
Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math
motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 31(4), 317-327. doi: 10.1177/0165025407077752

Gunderson, E. A., Park, D., Maloney, E. A., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2018). Reciprocal
relations among motivational frameworks, math anxiety, and math achievement in early
elementary school. Journal of Cognition and Development, 19(1), 21-46. doi:
10.1080/15248372.2017.1421538

*Guven, B., & Cabakcor, B. O. (2013). Factors influencing mathematical problem-solving

achievement of seventh grade Turkish students. Learning and Individual Differences, 23,
131-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.003

*Hadfield, O. D., Littleton, C. E., Steiner, R. L., & Woods, E. S. (1998). Predictors of preservice
elementary teacher effectiveness in the micro-teaching of mathematics lessons. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 25(1), 34.

*Hafner, E. W. (2008). The relationship between math anxiety, math self-efficacy, and
achievement among a sample of eighth grade students. (Doctoral Dissertation, Capella
University).

Hall, C. W., Davis, N. B., Bolen, L. M., & Chia, R. (1999). Gender and racial differences in
mathematical performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(6), 677-689. doi:
10.1080/00224549909598248

*Hamid, M. H. S., Shahrill, M., Matzin, R., Mahalle, S., & Mundia, L. (2013). Barriers to
Mathematics Achievement in Brunei Secondary School Students: Insights into the roles
of mathematics anxiety, self-esteem, proactive coping, and test stress. International
Education Studies, 6(11), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p1

*Hanna, D., & Dempster, M. (2009). The effect of statistics anxiety on students’ predicted and
actual test scores. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(3-4), 201-209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2009.10446310

*Harari, R. R., Vukovic, R. K., & Bailey, S. P. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in young children:
an exploratory study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 538-555. doi:
doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727888

74
*Harding, J. L. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning groups on mathematics and statistics
anxiety in a college mathematics class. (Doctoral Dissertation, Robert Morris
University).

*Harpole, C. A. (1995). Effects of a mental rotations curriculum on mathematical

conceptualization and math anxiety in eighth grade male and female students. (Doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University).

*Hart, S. A, Daucourt, M., & Ganley, C. M. (2017). Individual differences related to college
students’ course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 129-
153. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11

**Hart, S. A, & Ganley, C. M. (2016). Psychology Majors Study Cohort 1. Raw data.

*Hart, S., & Ganley, C. M. (2018). The Nature of Math Anxiety in Adults: Prevalence and
Correlates. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/xncdq

*Hart, S. A., Ganley, C. M., & Purpura, D. J. (2016). Understanding the home math environment
and its role in predicting parent report of children’s math skills. PloS one, 11(12),
e0168227. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168227

*Hart, S. A., Logan, J. A., Thompson, L., Kovas, Y., McLoughlin, G., & Petrill, S. A. (2016). A
latent profile analysis of math achievement, numerosity, and math anxiety in
twins. Journal of educational psychology, 108(2), 181.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000045

*Helming, L. (2013). Motivation and Math Anxiety for Ability Grouped College Math Students.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).

Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33-46. doi: 10.2307/749455

*Henschel, S., & Roick, T. (2017). Relationships of mathematics performance, control and value
beliefs with cognitive and affective math anxiety. Learning and Individual
Differences, 55, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.009
Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a
meta‐ analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186

*Hill, F., Mammarella, I. C., Devine, A., Caviola, S., Passolunghi, M. C., & Szűcs, D. (2016).
Maths anxiety in primary and secondary school students: Gender differences,
developmental changes and anxiety specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 48,
45-53. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.006

75
*Hoffman, B. (2010). “I think I can, but I'm afraid to try”: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and
mathematics anxiety in mathematics problem-solving efficiency. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(3), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.02.001

*Hong, E., & Karstensson, L. (2002). Antecedents of state test anxiety. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27(2), 348-367. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1095

*Hoover, J. D., & Healy, A. F. (2017). Algebraic reasoning and bat-and-ball problem variants:
Solving isomorphic algebra first facilitates problem solving later. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 24(6), 1922-1928. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1241-8

*Hopko, D. R., Hunt, M. K., & Armento, M. E. (2005). Attentional task aptitude and
performance anxiety. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 389.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.389

Hopko, D. R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R. L., & Hunt, M. K. (2003). The abbreviated math anxiety
scale (AMAS) construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment, 10(2), 178-182. doi:
10.1177/1073191103010002008

*Hunt, T. E., Bhardwa, J., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Mental arithmetic performance, physiological
reactivity and mathematics anxiety amongst UK primary school children. Learning and
Individual Differences, 57, 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.016

*Hunt, T. E., Clark‐Carter, D., & Sheffield, D. (2015). Exploring the Relationship Between
Mathematics Anxiety and Performance: An eye‐tracking approach. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 29(2), 226-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3099

**Hurst, M., & Cordes, S. (2012). FDN Study 1. Unpublished Manuscript.

**Hurst, M., & Cordes, S. (2013). FDN Study 2. Unpublished Manuscript.

Hurst, M., & Cordes, S. (2017). When Being Good at Math Is Not Enough: How Students’
Beliefs About the Nature of Mathematics Impact Decisions to Pursue Optional Math
Education. In Understanding Emotions in Mathematical Thinking and Learning (pp. 221-
241).

*Hutt, G. K. (2007). Experiential learning spaces: Hermetic transformational leadership for

psychological safety, consciousness development and math anxiety related inferiority
complex depotentiation (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University).

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics
performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139-155. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139

76
*Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). Do multiplication and division strategies rely on
executive and phonological working memory resources?. Memory & Cognition, 35(7),
1759-1771. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193508

*Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). The development of strategy use in elementary school
children: Working memory and individual differences. Journal of experimental child
psychology, 96(4), 284-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.001

*Iossi, L. H. (2009). The mathematics anxiety of bilingual community college students.

(Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University).

*Ironsmith, M., Marva, J., Harju, B., & Eppler, M. (2003). Motivation and Performance in
College Students Enrolled in Self-Paced Versus Lecture-Format Remedial Mathematics
Courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(4).

*Jameson, M. M. (2013). The development and validation of the Children’s Anxiety in Math
Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(4), 391-395.

Jameson, M. M. (2014). Contextual factors related to math anxiety in second-grade children. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 82(4), 518-536. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2013.813367

Jamieson, J.P., Mendes, W.B., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Turning the knotw in
your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 208-212. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.015

*Jamieson, J. P., Peters, B. J., Greenwood, E. J., & Altose, A. J. (2016). Reappraising stress
arousal improves performance and reduces evaluation anxiety in classroom exam
situations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 579-587.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616644656

*Jansen, B. R., Louwerse, J., Straatemeier, M., Van der Ven, S. H., Klinkenberg, S., & Van der
Maas, H. L. (2013). The influence of experiencing success in math on math anxiety,
perceived math competence, and math performance. Learning and Individual
Differences, 24, 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.014

*Jansen, B. R., Schmitz, E. A., & van der Maas, H. L. (2016). Affective and motivational factors
mediate the relation between math skills and use of math in everyday life. Frontiers in
psychology, 7, 513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00513

*Jenßen, L., Dunekacke, S., Eid, M., & Blömeke, S. (2015). The relationship of mathematical
competence and mathematics anxiety. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000197

77
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters:
kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental
Psychology, 45(3), 850-867. doi: 10.1037/a0014939

*Justicia-Galiano, M. J., Martín-Puga, M. E., Linares, R., & Pelegrina, S. (2017). Math anxiety
and math performance in children: The mediating roles of working memory and math
self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 573-589.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12165

*Justicia-Galiano, M. J., Pelegrina, S., Lechuga, M. T., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., Martín-Puga, E. M.,
& Lendínez, C. (2016). Math anxiety and its relationship to inhibitory abilities and
perceived emotional intelligence. Anales De Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 32(1),
125-131. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.1.194891

*Karimi, A., & Venkatesan, S. (2009). Mathematics anxiety, mathematics performance and
overall academic performance in high school students. Management and Labour
Studies, 34(4), 556-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X0903400406

Kastberg, D., Chan, J. Y., & Murray, G. (2016). Performance of US 15-Year-Old Students in
Science, Reading, and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context: First Look at
PISA 2015. NCES 2017-048. National Center for Education Statistics.

*Keeley, J., Zayac, R., & Correia, C. (2008). Curvilinear relationships between statistics anxiety
and performance among undergraduate students: Evidence for optimal anxiety. Statistics
Education Research Journal, 7(1), 4-15.

*Khabiri, P. S. (1993). The role of metacognition, effort and worry in math problem solving
requiring problem translation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).

*Kim, J., & McLean, J. E. (1994). The Relationships between Individual Difference Variables
and Test Performance in Computerized Adaptive Testing.

*Kimber, C. T. (2009). The effect of training in self-regulated learning on math anxiety and
achievement among preservice elementary teachers in a freshman course in mathematics
concepts. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University).

*Koponen, V., & Lasonen, J. (1994). Finnish Vocational High School Students' Perceptions of
Themselves as Learners of Mathematics. International Journal of Vocational Education
and Training, 2(1), 21-37.

**Kowalsky, A.L. (2017). The role of fingers in adults’ numerical processing. Unpublished
manuscript.

78
**Krinzinger, H. (2016). Math anxiety questionnaire cross-sectional (group testing of MAQ).
Unpublished manuscript.

*Krinzinger, H., Kaufmann, L., & Willmes, K. (2009). Math anxiety and math ability in early
primary school years. Journal of Psycho-Educational Assessment, 27(3), 206–225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908330583.

*Kyttälä, M., & Björn, P. M. (2010). Prior mathematics achievement, cognitive appraisals and
anxiety as predictors of Finnish students’ later mathematics performance and career
orientation. Educational Psychology, 30(4), 431-448.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443411003724491

*Kyttälä, M., & Björn, P. M. (2014). The role of literacy skills in adolescents' mathematics word
problem performance: Controlling for visuo-spatial ability and mathematics
anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 59-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.010

*Lai, Y., Zhu, X., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2015). Effects of mathematics anxiety and mathematical
metacognition on word problem solving in children with and without mathematical
learning difficulties. PloS one, 10(6), e0130570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130570

*Lalonde, R. N., & Gardner, R. C. (1993). Statistics as a second language? A model for
predicting performance in psychology students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 25(1), 108-125.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078792

**Lauer, J. E., Esposito, A. G., & Bauer, P. J. (2016). The role of anxiety in math and spatial
performance: Developmental change and specificity across the elementary-school years.
Unpublished manuscript.

Lauermann, F., Chow, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Differential effects of adolescents’ expectancy
and value beliefs about math and English on math/science-related and human services-
related career plans. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 205-
228.

*Lawson, V. J. (1993). Mathematics anxiety, test anxiety, instructional methods, and

achievement in a developmental mathematics class. (Doctoral dissertation, Howard
University)

*Leap, E. M. (2013). A Quasi-Experimental Study Investigating the Effect of Scent on Students'

Memory of Multiplication Facts and Math Anxiety. (Doctoral dissertation, Robert Morris
University)

79
*Lee, J. (2009). Universals and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math
anxiety across 41 PISA 2003 participating countries. Learning and Individual
Differences, 19(3), 355-365. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.009

*Lee, K., & Cho, S. (2018). Magnitude processing and complex calculation is negatively
impacted by mathematics anxiety while retrieval-based simple calculation is
not. International Journal of Psychology, 53(4), 321-329.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12412

**LeFevre, J. A., Penner-Wilger, M., Pyke, A. A., Shanahan, T., & Deslauriers, W. A.
(2014). Putting Two and Two Together: Declines in Arithmetic Fluency among Young
Canadian Adults, 1993 to 2005. Technical Report 2014-01 (No. 2014-01).

*Lester, D. (2007). Predicting performance in a psychological statistics course. Psychological

Reports, 101(1), 334-334. https://doi.org/10.10.2466/PR0.101.1.334

*Lester, D. (2016). Predicting success in psychological statistics courses. Psychological

Reports, 118(3), 772-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116647687

Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A
distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20(3), 975-978. doi:
10.2466/pr0.1967.20.3.975

*Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2013). An investigation of the Fennema-Sherman mathematics

anxiety subscale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(1),
26-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612459198

*Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2013). Development of a short form of the attitudes toward
mathematics inventory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 145-164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9414-x

*Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2015). Identifying affective domains that correlate and predict
mathematics performance in high-performing students in Singapore. Educational
Psychology, 35(6), 747-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.860221

*Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Poom, L. (2017). Individual differences in nonverbal number
skills predict math anxiety. Cognition, 159, 156-162. doi:
10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.014

*Lloyd, S. A., & Robertson, C. L. (2012). Screencast tutorials enhance student learning of
statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 39(1), 67-71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311430640

80
Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at Black-White mathematics gaps: Intersections of race
and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practices data. Journal of Negro
Education, 269-287. doi: 10.2307/3211180

*Lukowski, S. L., DiTrapani, J., Jeon, M., Wang, Z., Schenker, V. J., Doran, M. M., ... & Petrill,
S. A. (2016). Multidimensionality in the measurement of math-specific anxiety and its
relationship with mathematical performance. Learning and individual differences.
*Luo, W., Hogan, D., Tan, L. S., Kaur, B., Ng, P. T., & Chan, M. (2014). Self‐construal and
students’ math self‐concept, anxiety and achievement: An examination of achievement
goals as mediators. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(3), 184-195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12058

*Luo, W., Lee, K., Ng, P. T., & Ong, J. X. W. (2014). Incremental beliefs of ability,
achievement emotions and learning of Singapore students. Educational Psychology,
34(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.909008

Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 520-540.

Ma, X., & Xu, J. (2004). The causal ordering of mathematics anxiety and mathematics
achievement: a longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 27(2), 165-179. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.003

Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica
Neerlandica, 58(2), 127-137. doi: 10.1046/j.0039-0402.2003.00252.x

*Macher, D., Paechter, M., Papousek, I., & Ruggeri, K. (2011). Statistics anxiety, trait anxiety,
learning behavior, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 27(4), 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0090-5

*Macher, D., Paechter, M., Papousek, I., Ruggeri, K., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Arendasy, M.
(2013). Statistics anxiety, state anxiety during an examination, and academic
achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 535-549.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02081.x

MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (2012). Cognitive bias modification approaches to anxiety. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 189-217. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-
143052

*Maloney, E. A., Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2015).
Intergenerational effects of parents’ math anxiety on children’s math achievement and
anxiety. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1480-1488. doi: 10.1177/0956797615592630

81
Maloney, E. A., Risko, E. F., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2010). Mathematics anxiety affects
counting but not subitizing during visual enumeration. Cognition, 114(2), 293-297. doi:
10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.013

*Maree, J. G., Fletcher, L., & Erasmus, P. (2013). The relationship between emotional
intelligence, study orientation in mathematics and the mathematics achievement of the
middle adolescent. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(2), 205-211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2013.10820616

*Maree, J. G., Van Der Walt, M. S., & Ellis, S. M. (2009). Developing a study orientation
questionnaire in mathematics for primary school students. Psychological Reports, 104(2),
425-438. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.104.2.425-438

McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to the
present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 637-647. doi:
10.2307/749576

*McMullan, M., Jones, R., & Lea, S. (2012). Math anxiety, self‐efficacy, and ability in British
undergraduate nursing students. Research in Nursing & Health, 35(2), 178-186.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21460

Meece, J. L. (1982). Individual differences in the affective reactions of middle and high school
students to mathematics: A social cognitive perspective.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on
young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-70. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.82.1.60

*Melius, J. (2012). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics self-efficacy in relation to medication

calculation performance in nurses (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas).

*Merritt, W. P. (2011). Exploring math anxiety as it relates to math achievement, gender, and
race (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University).

*Miller, H., & Bichsel, J. (2004). Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math performance.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37(3), 591-606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.029

*Mkhize, M. V., & Maistry, S. M. (2017). Pre-service accounting teachers’ attitudes to

mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 37(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n2a1372

82
*Morony, S., Kleitman, S., Lee, Y. P., & Stankov, L. (2013). Predicting achievement:
Confidence vs self-efficacy, anxiety, and self-concept in Confucian and European
countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 79-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.11.002

*Morsanyi, K., Primi, C., Handley, S. J., Chiesi, F., & Galli, S. (2012). Are systemizing and
autistic traits related to talent and interest in mathematics and engineering? Testing some
of the central claims of the empathizing–systemizing theory. British Journal of
Psychology, 103(4), 472-496. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-31

*Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., & Primi, C. (2014). Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced
cognitive reflection: a potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to
susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(1), 31.

Nag, O. S. (2018, February 1). Europe Countries and Regions. Retrieved from
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-four-european-regions-as-defined-by-the-united-
nations-geoscheme-for-europe.html

Namkung, J. M., Peng, P., & Lin, X. (2019). The relation between mathematics anxiety and
mathematics performance among school-aged students: a meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 89(3), 459-496.

*Nasser, F. M. (2004). Structural model of the effects of cognitive and affective factors on the
achievement of Arabic-speaking pre-service teachers in introductory statistics. Journal of
Statistics Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2004.11910717

*Nasser, F., & Birenbaum, M. (2005). Modeling mathematics achievement of Jewish and Arab
eighth graders in Israel: The effects of learner-related variables. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 11(3), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500101108

*Necka, E. A., Sokolowski, H. M., & Lyons, I. M. (2015). The role of self-math overlap in
understanding math anxiety and the relation between math anxiety and performance.
Frontiers In Psychology, 6, 1543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01543

*Novak, E., & Tassell, J. L. (2015). A dataset for education‐related majors' performance
measures with pre/post‐video game practice. British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(5), 932-936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12287

*Novak, E., & Tassell, J. L. (2017). Studying preservice teacher math anxiety and mathematics
performance in geometry, word, and non-word problem solving. Learning and Individual
Differences, 54, 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.005

*Núñez-Peña, M. I (2013). 2013 undergraduate student data. Raw data.

83
*Núñez-Peña, M. I. (2014). 2014 undergraduate student data. Raw data.

Núñez-Peña, M. I., Guilera, G., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2014). The single-item math anxiety
scale: An alternative way of measuring mathematical anxiety. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(4), 306-317. doi: 10.1177/0734282913508528

Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2014). Less precise representation of numerical

magnitude in high math-anxious individuals: an ERP study of the size and distance
effects. Biological Psychology, 103, 176-183. doi: 10.1177/0734282913508528

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999). Measuring Student

Knowledge and Skills: A New Framework for Assessment. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume
I): Excellence and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264266490-
en.

Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College
Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report
to the President. Executive Office of the President.

*Otts, C. D. (2010). Self-Regulation and math attitudes: effects on academic performance in

developmental math courses at a community college. (Ed. D. Dissertation, University of
Kansas).

*Owens, A. R. (1994). The relationship between selected affective and cognitive variables to
academic achievement and persistence with peer tutoring (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia).

Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1991). Validation of an index of the quality of review
articles. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 44(11), 1271-1278. doi: 10.1016/0895-
4356(91)90160-B

*Paechter, M., Macher, D., Martskvishvili, K., Wimmer, S., & Papousek, I. (2017). Mathematics
anxiety and statistics anxiety. Shared but also unshared components and antagonistic
contributions to performance in statistics. Frontiers In Psychology, 8, 1196.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01196

*Pajares, M. F. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism on mathematics

problem-solving performance: A path analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida).

*Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 325-344.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0025

84
*Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24(2), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991

*Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426-443.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1029

Pariona, A. (2018, February 10). The Five Regions of Asia - Asia Countries and Regions.
Retrieved from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-four-regions-of-asia.html.

*Park, D. E. (2014). Motivational frameworks among children in early elementary school

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago).

Park, D., Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S.L (2014). The role of expressive writing in math anxiety.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 103-111. doi: 10.1037/xap0000013

*Parks, M. Q. (2009). Possible effects of calculators on the problem-solving abilities and

mathematical anxiety of students with learning disabilities or attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,

and implications for educational research and practice. Educational psychology
review, 18(4), 315-341. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions
in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
(AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002

Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017). Achievement
emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child
development, 88(5), 1653-1670. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12704

Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of mathematics and
working memory: Moderating effects of working memory domain, type of mathematics
skill, and sample characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 455-473.
doi: 10.1037/edu0000079

Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., Rushton, L., & Moreno, S. G. (2010).
Assessing publication bias in meta‐analyses in the presence of between‐study
heterogeneity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in
Society), 173(3), 575-591.

85
*Piearcy, R. K. (1997). The relationship between mathematics anxiety, cerebral hemispheric
dominance, and final course grade of students in college algebra. (Doctoral dissertation,
East Texas State University).

Plake, B. S., & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the
Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(2),
551-557. doi: 10.1177/001316448204200218

*Pletzer, B., Wood, G., Moeller, K., Nuerk, H. C., & Kerschbaum, H. H. (2010). Predictors of
performance in a real-life statistics examination depend on the individual cortisol profile.
Biological Psychology, 85(3), 410-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.08.015

Pretorius, T. B., & Norman, A. M. (1992). Psychometric data on the statistics anxiety scale for a
sample of South African students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4),
933-937. doi: 10.1177/0013164492052004015

*Prieto, G., & Delgado, A. R. (2007). Measuring math anxiety (in Spanish) with the Rasch rating
scale model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 149.

*Radišić, J., Videnović, M., & Baucal, A. (2015). Math anxiety—contributing school and
individual level factors. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0224-7

*Ramirez, G. (2013). The cognitive mechanism underlying the math anxiety-performance

relationship in early elementary school. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago).

*Ramirez, G. (2017). Motivated forgetting in early mathematics: A proof-of-concept study.

Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02087

*Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E.A., Levine, S.C., & Beilock, S.L. (2016). On the
relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary school: The
role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 83-
100. doi: 10.1016/j,jecp.2015.07.014

*Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2013). Math anxiety, working
memory, and math achievement in early elementary school. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 14(2), 187-202. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.664593

Ramirez, G., Hooper, S. Y., Kersting, N. B., Ferguson, R., & Yeager, D. (2018). Teacher math
anxiety relates to adolescent students’ math achievement. AERA Open, 4(1), 1-13. doi:
10.1177/2332858418756052

86
*Rayner, V., Pitsolantis, N., & Osana, H. (2009). Mathematics anxiety in preservice teachers: Its
relationship to their conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 21(3), 60-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217553

*Ribeiro, F. S., Tonoli, M. C., Ribeiro, D. P. D. S. A., & Santos, F. H. D. (2017). Numeracy
deficits scrutinized: Evidences of primary developmental dyscalculia. Psychology &
Neuroscience, 10(2), 189. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000082

Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: psychometric
data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 551-554. doi: 10.1037/h0033456

*Roberts, S. O., & Vukovic, R. K. (2011). The relation between parental involvement and math
anxiety: implications for mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

*Rolison, J. J., Morsanyi, K., & O’Connor, P. A. (2016). Can I count on getting better?
Association between math anxiety and poorer understanding of medical risk reductions.
Medical Decision Making, 36(7), 876-886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15602000

Rounds, J. B., & Hendel, D. D. (1980). Measurement and dimensionality of mathematics

anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(2), 138.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological
Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

*Rushing Jr., B. (1996). Effects of study skill and systematic desensitization training on
mathematics anxiety, mathematics achievement, mathematics self-efficacy and cognitive
interference among university students enrolled in developmental mathematics (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi).

*Sandoz, E. K., Butcher, G., & Protti, T. A. (2017). A preliminary examination of willingness
and importance as moderators of the relationship between statistics anxiety and
performance. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(1), 47-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.02.002

*Satake, E., & Amato, P. P. (1995). Mathematics anxiety and achievement among Japanese
elementary school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 1000-
1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055006009

**Schmitz, E. A., Salemink, E., Wiers, R. W., & Jansen, B. R. (2015). Development of the
Components of the Math Anxiety Questionnaire. Unpublished data.

87
*Schnell, K., Tibubos, A. N., Rohrmann, S., & Hodapp, V. (2013). Test and math anxiety: A
validation of the German Test Anxiety Questionnaire. Polish Psychological Bulletin,
44(2), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppb-2013-0022

*Schoeck, A. M. (1994). The effectiveness of cognitive/relaxation training in reducing test

anxiety and math anxiety and improving arithmetic performance with ninth-and tenth-
grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany).

*Schommer-Aikins, M., Unruh, S., & Morphew, J. (2015). Epistemological belief congruency in
mathematics between vocational technology students and their instructors. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i4.859

*Scott, J.S. (2003). Modeling aspects of students' attitudes and performance in an undergraduate
introductory statistics course. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia University).

*Scott, S. (2014). The Effects of Math Tutoring Sessions for Parents on Eighth Grade Students'
Mathematics Achievement and Anxiety. (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University).

*Seng, E. L. K. (2015). The influence of pre-university students' mathematics test anxiety and
numerical anxiety on mathematics achievement. International Education Studies, 8(11),
162-168. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n11p162

*Si, J., Li, H., Sun, Y., Xu, Y., & Sun, Y. (2016). Age-related differences of individuals’
arithmetic strategy utilization with different level of math anxiety. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01612

*Siebers, W. M. (2015). Relationship between math anxiety and student achievement of middle
school students (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).

Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., ... &
Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics
achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691-697. doi: 10.1177/0956797612440101

*Skaalvik, E. M. (2002). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego goals in mathematics lessons:

Relationships among task and avoidance goals, achievement, self-perceptions, anxiety,
and motivation (A Scientific Educology). International Journal of Educology, 16(1), 54-
76.

*Solazzo, L. A. (2008). The role of gender, cognition, anxiety, and competence beliefs in
predicting mathematics achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University).

88
*Soni, A., & Kumari, S. (2017). The role of parental math anxiety and math attitude in their
children’s math achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15(2), 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9687-5

Sonnenschein, S., & Galindo, C. (2015). Race/ethnicity and early mathematics skills: Relations
between home, classroom, and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 108(4), 261-277. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.880394

**Sowinski, C. (2016). Numerical Building Blocks: Exploring Domain-Specific Cognitive

Predictors of Mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.

**Sowinski, C., Dunbar, K., LeFevre, J. (2014). Calculation Fluency Test. Unpublished
manuscript.

*Standing, L. G., Sproule, R. A., & Leung, A. (2006). Can business and economics students
perform elementary arithmetic?. Psychological Reports, 98(2), 549-555.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.2.549-555

*Stankov, L., Morony, S., & Lee, Y. P. (2014). Confidence: the best non-cognitive predictor of
academic achievement?. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 9-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814194

*Steiner, E. T., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2012). Three brief assessments of math achievement.
Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1101-1107. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-
0185-6

Sterne, J.A., & Harbord, R.M. (2004). Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4(2),
127-141.

*Stiegelmeyer, C. (2012). The relationship between mathematical knowledge of numbers and

operations and mathematics beliefs of prospective teachers (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Carolina).

Suárez-Pellicioni, M., Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Colomé, À. (2016). Math anxiety: A review of its
cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases. Cognitive,
Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(1), 3-22. doi: 10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7

Suinn, R. M., & Edwards, R. (1982). The measurement of mathematics anxiety: The
mathematics anxiety rating scale for adolescents—MARS-A. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38(3), 576-580. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198207)38:3<576::AID-
JCLP2270380317>3.0.CO;2-V

Suinn, R. M., Taylor, S., & Edwards, R. W. (1988). Suinn mathematics anxiety rating scale for
elementary school students (MARS-E): Psychometric and normative data. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 979-986. doi: 10.1177/0013164488484013

89
*Suinn, R. M., & Winston, E. H. (2003). The mathematics anxiety rating scale, a brief version:
Psychometric data. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 167-173.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.167

Supekar, K., Iuculano, T., Chen, L., & Menon, V. (2015). Remediation of childhood math
anxiety and associated neural circuits through cognitive tutoring. Journal of
Neuroscience, 35(36), 12574-12583. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0786-15.2015

*Thien, L. M., & Ong, M. Y. (2015). Malaysian and Singaporean students’ affective
characteristics and mathematics performance: evidence from PISA
2012. SpringerPlus, 4(1), 563.

Thomas, G., & Dowker, A. (2000). Mathematics anxiety and related factors in young children.
In British Psychological Society Developmental Section Conference.

*Thompson, R., Wylie, J., Mulhern, G., & Hanna, D. (2015). Predictors of numeracy
performance in undergraduate psychology, nursing and medical students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 43, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.008

*Tissot, S. L. (1997). An examination of ethnic variation in gender differences in mathematics

attitudes and performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland Baltimore
County).

Tobias, S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-
related cognitions in anxiety and motivation (pp. 35–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (1995). Development and Validation of an Objective Measure of
Metacognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association in San Francisco, CA.

*Townsend, M. A., Moore, D. W., Tuck, B. F., & Wilton, K. M. (1998). Self‐concept and
anxiety in university students studying social science statistics within a co‐operative
learning structure. Educational Psychology, 18(1), 41-54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341980180103

*Trezise, K., & Reeve, R. A. (2014). Working memory, worry, and algebraic ability. Journal Of
Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.001

*Tsao, Y. L. (2004). Exploring the connections among number sense, mental computation
performance, and the written computation performance of elementary preservice school
teachers. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 1(12), 71-90.
https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v1i12.2022

90
*Tubbs, L. (2014). Teaching methods in mathematics and their impact on sixth-grade students'
mathematics anxiety, attitudes, and achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Union
University).

*Van der Beek, J. P., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. (2017).
Self‐concept mediates the relation between achievement and emotions in mathematics.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 478-495.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12160
Verkijika, S. F., & De Wet, L. (2015). Using a brain-computer interface (BCI) in reducing math
anxiety: Evidence from South Africa. Computers & Education, 81, 113-122. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.002

*Vidović, V. V. (1999). Self-referenced cognitions and mathematics grades in secondary school.

Studia Psychologica, 41(2), 133.

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of

Statistical Software, 36(3). doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174-1204. doi: 10.1037/a0036620

*Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 1-10. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.001

*Vukovic, R. K., Roberts, S. O., & Green Wright, L. (2013). From parental involvement to
children's mathematical performance: The role of mathematics anxiety. Early Education
& Development, 24(4), 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.693430

Wang, M.T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM
fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001

*Wang, Z., Hart, S. A., Kovas, Y., Lukowski, S., Soden, B., Thompson, L. A., ... & Petrill, S. A.
(2014). Who is afraid of math? Two sources of genetic variance for mathematical
anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 1056-1064.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12224

*Wang, Z., Lukowksi, S.L., Hart, S.A., Lyons, I.M., Thompson, L.A., Kovas, Y., … & Petrill,
S.A. (2015). Is math anxiety always bad for math learning? The role of math motivation.
Psychological Science, 26(12), 1863-1876. doi: 10.1177/0956797615602471

91
Watt, H. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J., Morris, Z. A., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017).
Mathematics—A critical filter for STEM-related career choices? A longitudinal
examination among Australian and US adolescents. Sex Roles, 77(3-4), 254-271. doi:
10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1

*Watts, B. K. (2011). Relationships of mathematics anxiety, mathematics self-efficacy and

mathematics performance of adult basic education students (Doctoral dissertation,
Capella University).

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement

motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. doi:
10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Wigfield, A., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 210-216. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.80.2.210

Wijsman, L. A., Warrens, M. J., Saab, N., Van Driel, J. H., & Westenberg, P. M. (2016).
Declining trends in student performance in lower secondary education. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 31(4), 595-612. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0277-2

*Wilder, S. (2012). Gender differences in factors pertaining to math anxiety among college
students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Akron).

*Williams, J. E. (1994). Anxiety measurement: Construct validity and test performance.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 27(1), 302-7.

Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 92-104.
doi: 10.1037/h0031332

*Wu, S., Amin, H., Barth, M., Malcarne, V., & Menon, V. (2012). Math anxiety in second and
third graders and its relation to mathematics achievement. Frontiers in psychology, 3,
162. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00162

*Wu, S. S., Chen, L., Battista, C., Watts, A. K. S., Willcutt, E. G., & Menon, V. (2017). Distinct
influences of affective and cognitive factors on children’s non-verbal and verbal
mathematical abilities. Cognition, 166, 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.016

*Wu, S. S., Willcutt, E. G., Escovar, E., & Menon, V. (2013). Mathematics achievement and
anxiety and their relation to internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 503-514. doi: 10.1177/0022219412473154

92
*Yáñez-Marquina, L., & Villardón-Gallego, L. (2017). Math anxiety, a hierarchical construct:
Development and validation of the scale for assessing math anxiety in secondary
education. Ansiedad y Estrés, 23(2-3), 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anyes.2017.10.001

Young, J. R., & Young, J. L. (2016). Young, Black, and anxious: Describing the Black student
mathematics anxiety research using confidence intervals. Journal of Urban Mathematics
Education, 9(1), 79-93.

Zabulionis, A. (2001). Mathematics and science achievement of various nations. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 33.

*Zachai, J. (1995). Adult learners' math self-concept as a barrier to passing California State
University's entry level mathematics (ELM) Test. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
San Francisco).

*Zakaria, E., & Nordin, N. M. (2007). The effects of mathematics anxiety on matriculation
students as related to motivation and achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 4(1). 27-30.

*Zettle, R. D. (2003). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs. systematic desensitization
in treatment of mathematics anxiety. The Psychological Record, 53(2), 197-215.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395440

Zhang, J., Zhao, N., & Kong, Q. P. (2019). The relationship between math anxiety and math
performance: a meta-analytic investigation. Frontiers in psychology, 10.

93
 Records identified through
Prelimin ar y Round :

database searching
Id en tification

(n = 1556)

Titles and abstracts screened Duplicate records removed

(n = 1263) (n = 293)
Titles & Ab str acts
Roun d 1:

Included from screening Need to screen full-text Records excluded

titles and abstracts articles for decision (n = 658)
(n = 266) (n = 339)
Full-text ar ticles

Full-text articles Full-text articles

Roun d 2:

assessed for eligibility excluded, with reasons

(n = 147) (n = 192)

Full-text articles coded

(n = 413)
)
Roun d 3:
Coding

Records reported correlation Records requiring Records excluded

coefficients author queries during coding phase
(n = 128) (n = 199) (n = 86)
Autho r Q uery
Roun d 4:

Records included from Records excluded due to

successful author query failed author query
(n = 69) (n = 130)

Additional records identified

Records included
from database search through emailing listserv for
(n = 197) unpublished studies
In cluded

(n = 26)

Total included from database

search and listserv
(n = 223)

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of the Excluded and Included Studies

94
Table 1
Math Assessment and Math Anxiety Scale Categories, Definitions, and Examples
Category Definition Example measures/items
Type of Math Anxiety Scale
Child Math Anxiety Developed for the intended use of measuring math anxiety in children Scale for Early Math Anxiety
Developed with the intended or primary use of measuring math anxiety in adolescents or Math Anxiety Rating Scale
Adolescent and Adult Math Anxiety adults or with no intention of measuring a specific age group/grade level during
childhood
Math Anxiety Items in a measure developed for the intended use of measuring anxiety in a broad math Math Anxiety Rating Scale
context
Statistics Anxiety Items in a measure developed for the intended use of measuring anxiety in a statistics Statistics Anxiety Scale
context
Components of Math Anxiety
Worry Cognitive dimension of anxiety; negative expectations and self-deprecating thoughts --
about a math situation*
Emotionality Physiological dimension of anxiety; feelings of dread, nervousness, and unpleasant --
physiological reactions to math situations*
Math Evaluation Anxiety Anxiety felt while taking a math test or while doing math in front of others --
Math Learning Anxiety Anxiety felt in the classroom or while engaging in a math task --
Type of Math Assessment
Standardized high-stakes Measures used for selection into institutions or receipt of license or degree SAT, ACT
Standardized measures for research Measures with a standard protocol, often validated to measure achievement, may have Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems
manual
Non-standardized or research-made Measures with no standard protocol or created by the researcher without validation Subtraction problems created by
researcher
Course grade Grade from assignments and exams within a course Developmental Algebra course grade
Exam/test grade Grade from course exam on specific math material Statistics mid-term exam
Content of Math Assessment
Approximate Number System Tasks that measure intuitive number and magnitude system with non-symbolical The Dots Task
representations
Basic Number Knowledge Knowledge about numerosity, relations of numbers, counting words, and symbolic Number line task
numbers**
Whole Number Calculation Single or multi-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division** Woodcock-Johnson Math Fluency
Word Problem Solving Tasks with problem narrative where relevant information needs to be isolated; number WIAT Math Reasoning Subtest
sentences
Fractions, Decimals, & Percentages Knowledge of part-whole relation and interpreting measurement of fractions** Knowledge of Fractions Assessment
Geometry Tasks asking about shape, size, position of figures relative to others, and properties of KeyMath3 Geometry Subtest
space**
Algebra Knowledge and application of pre-learned symbol manipulation arguments** KeyMath3 Algebra Subtest
Statistics, Data Analysis, & Probability Knowledge in analysis and interpretation of data Statistics Concept Inventory
Note. *definition adapted from Liebert & Morris, 1967; **definition adapted from Peng, Namkung, Barnes, & Sun, 2015.

95
Figure 2. Average Effect Sizes for Demographic Moderators.

96
Figure 3. Average Effect Sizes for Teacher and Low Math Ability Moderators.

97
Figure 4. Average Effect Sizes for Math Anxiety Scale and Components of Math Anxiety Moderators.

98
Figure 5. Average Effect Sizes for Math Assessment and Math Content Area Moderators.

99
Table 2
Multi-level Model Results for Overall and Moderator Analyses
Between- Within-
study study
Moderator F(df1, df2) QE(df) I2
variance variance
(Level-1) (Level-2)
Overall -- .01 .02 7797.56(749)** 90.39%
Gender 1.19(1, 88) .02 .01 494.51(88)** 82.00%
Race 0.28(1, 174) .003 .01 609.50(174)** 71.29%
Continent 1.56(5, 735) .01 .02 7354.65(735)** 89.94%
Grade level 6.64(5, 741)** .01 .02 6582.82(741)** 88.67%
Teachers 0.59(1, 745) .01 .02 7755.88(745)** 90.38%
Low math ability 6.29(1, 745)* .01 .02 7732.83(745)** 90.35%
Child math anxiety scale 1.26(5, 149) .01 .02 735.33(149)** 79.06%
Adolescent/Adult math
6.87(9, 502)** .004 .02 5233.87(502)** 90.24%
anxiety scale
Anxiety scale by topic 12.14(1, 745)** .01 .02 7199.63(745)** 89.64%
Components of math
3.02(5, 236)* .01 .01 1273.77(236)** 81.08%
anxiety
Math assessment 2.34(4, 742)* .01 .02 7398.40(742)** 89.92%
Math content area 1.40(7, 327) .01 .02 1176.00(327)** 71.60%
Note. *p < .05; **p < .001; F = omnibus test; df = degrees of freedom; QE = Residual
Heterogeneity; I2 = Heterogeneity Percentage.

79
Table 3
Univariate Pairwise Comparisons of Grade Level and Low Math Ability Moderator
95% CI
Demographic beta LL UL K
Grade level
1-2 vs. 3-5 .08*† .02 .15 157
1-2 vs. 6-8 -.04 -.11 .04 184
1-2 vs. 9-12 -.07* -.14 -.01 167
1-2 vs. PS .03 -.05 .10 423
1-2 vs. Non-student adults -.05 -.14 .03 88
3-5 vs. 6-8 -.11** -.19 -.04 205
3-5 vs. 9-12 -.14*** -.21 -.08 188
3-5 vs. PS -.05 -.11 .02 444
3-5 vs. Non-student adults -.14* -.25 -.02 109
6-8 vs. 9-12 -.03 -.09 .02 215
6-8 vs. PS .07** .02 .12 471
6-8 vs. Non-student adults -.02 -.13 .08 136
9-12 vs. PS .10*** .05 .14 454
9-12 vs. Adult .01 -.08 .10 119
PS vs. Non-student adults -.09 -.19 .01 375
Low math ability
Low math ability vs. non-low math
-.21** -.37 -.04 747
ability
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; †predictor variables no longer significant after
Benjamini-Hochberg multiple estimation corrections; K = number of effect sizes;
PS = Postsecondary.

80
Table 4
Univariate Pairwise Comparisons of Adolescent/Adult and Math Topic Math
Anxiety Measure Moderators
95% CI
Measure beta LL UL K
Adolescent/Adult Math Anxiety Measure
MARS vs. One item 0.03 -0.05 0.10 215
MARS vs. FSMAS -0.16*** -0.23 -0.09 241
MARS vs. MARS-A -0.11 -0.23 0.02 205
MARS vs. PISA -0.12*** -0.16 0.08 253
MARS vs. AEQ -0.18** -0.29 -0.06 204
MARS vs. MAS (Betz) -0.14*** -0.22 -0.05 222
MARS vs. MAS (Meece) -0.02 -0.13 0.09 212
MARS vs. MAS (Bai) -0.05 -0.15 0.06 216
MARS vs. Other -0.05 -0.10 0.002 320
One item vs. FSMAS -0.21*** -0.33 -0.09 62
One item vs. MARS-A -0.14 -0.34 0.06 26
One item vs. PISA -0.16*** -0.24 -0.08 74
One item vs. AEQ -0.39*** -0.50 -0.27 25
One item vs. MAS (Betz) -0.18**† -0.32 -0.04 43
One item vs. MAS (Meece) -0.06 -0.19 0.07 33
One item vs. MAS (Bai) -0.10 -0.21 0.03 37
One item vs. Other -0.06 -0.15 0.02 141
FSMAS vs. MARS-A 0.05 -0.12 0.23 52
FSMAS vs. PISA 0.05 -0.01 0.11 100
FSMAS vs. AEQ -0.02 -0.17 0.13 51
FSMAS vs. MAS (Betz) 0.02 -0.10 0.14 69
FSMAS vs. MAS (Meece) 0.14*† 0.01 0.28 59
FSMAS vs. MAS (Bai) 0.12 -0.01 0.24 63
†
FSMAS vs. Other 0.10** 0.02 0.18 167
MARS-A vs. PISA 0.0003 -0.11 0.11 64
MARS-A vs. AEQ -0.08 -0.35 0.18 15
MARS-A vs. MAS (Betz) -0.03 -0.25 0.18 33
MARS-A vs. MAS (Meece) 0.07 -0.16 0.31 23
MARS-A vs. MAS (Bai) 0.06 -0.16 0.27 27
MARS-A vs. Other 0.05 -0.09 0.19 131
PISA vs. AEQ -0.06 -0.15 0.04 63
PISA vs. MAS (Betz) -0.02 -0.10 0.06 81
PISA vs. MAS (Meece) 0.10*† 0.02 0.19 71
PISA vs. MAS (Bai) 0.07 -0.01 0.15 75
PISA vs. Other 0.06*† 0.01 0.11 179
AEQ vs. MAS (Betz) 0.05 -0.14 0.23 32
AEQ vs. MAS (Meece) 0.16 -0.03 0.35 22
AEQ vs. MAS (Bai) 0.13 -0.04 0.30 26
AEQ vs. Other 0.12 -0.01 0.25 130
MAS (Betz) vs. MAS (Meece) 0.11 -0.05 0.28 40
MAS (Betz) vs. MAS (Bai) 0.09 -0.06 0.24 44
MAS (Betz) vs. Other 0.08 -0.02 0.18 148
MAS (Meece) vs. MAS (Bai) -0.03 -0.12 0.07 34
MAS (Meece) vs. Other -0.04 -0.16 0.08 138
MAS (Bai) vs. Other -0.01 -0.12 0.10 142
Anxiety Topic
Math vs. Statistics .09*** .04 .14 747
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; †predictor variables no longer significant after
Benjamini-Hochberg multiple estimation corrections; CI = Confidence Interval;
LL = Lower Level; UL = Upper Level; K = number of effect sizes;
MARS = Math Anxiety Rating Scale; FSMAS = Fennema Sherman Math Anxiety Scale; MARS-A = Math Anxiety
Rating Scale – Adolescents; PISA = Programme for International Student
Assessments; AEQ = Achievement Emotion Questionnaire; MAS = Math
Anxiety Scale.

81
Table 5
Univariate Pairwise Comparisons of Math Anxiety Component Subgroups
95% CI
Subscale beta LL UL K
Worry vs. Emotionality .04 -.08 .16 21
Worry vs. Both Worry and Emotionality .13 -.11 .37 25
Worry vs. Math Evaluation Anxiety .18** .07 .30 69
Worry vs. Math Learning Anxiety .10 -.05 .26 49
Worry vs. Both Math Evaluation and Learning Anxiety .17*** .07 .27 134
Emotionality vs. Both Worry and Emotionality .12 -.07 .32 18
Emotionality vs. Math Evaluation Anxiety .14*† .02 .26 62
Emotionality vs. Math Learning Anxiety .08 -.08 .25 42
Emotionality vs. Both Math Evaluation and Learning
.15 .05 .25 127
Anxiety
Both Worry and Emotionality vs. Math Evaluation
.03 -.10 .15 66
Anxiety
Both Worry and Emotionality vs. Math Learning
-.03 -.22 .15 46
Anxiety
Both Worry and Emotionality vs. Both Math
.02 -.10 .13 131
Evaluation and Learning Anxiety
Math Testing Anxiety vs. Math Learning Anxiety -.04 -.09 .02 90
Math Testing Anxiety vs. Both Math Evaluation and
.002 -.05 .05 175
Learning Anxiety
Math Learning Anxiety vs. Both Math Evaluation and
.08** .02 .14 155
Learning Anxiety
Note. p < .05*; p < .01**; p < .001***; †predictor variables no longer significant after Benjamini-
Hochberg multiple estimation corrections; CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Level; UL = Upper
Level; K = number of effect sizes.

82
Table 6
Univariate Pairwise Comparisons of Math Assessment Subgroups
95% CI
Subscale beta LL UL K
High stakes tests vs. Standardized research assessments -.005 -.06 .05 378
High stakes tests vs. Nonstandardized research
-.05 -.12 .01 222
assessments and Other tests
High stakes tests vs. Course grade -.02 -.08 .04 169
High stakes tests vs. Exam grade .06 -.002 .13 146
Standardized research assessments vs. Nonstandardized
.01 -.03 .05 488
research assessments and Other tests
Standardized research assessments vs. Course grade .01 -.03 .05 435
Standardized research assessments vs. Exam grade .08** .03 .14 412
Nonstandardized research assessments and Other tests
.02 -.05 .08 279
vs. Course grade
Nonstandardized research assessments and Other tests
.09* .02 .15 256
vs. Exam grade
Course grade vs. Exam grade .06*† .003 .11 203
Note. p < .05*; p < .01**; †predictor variables no longer significant after Benjamini-Hochberg multiple
estimation corrections; CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Level; UL = Upper Level; K = number of
effect sizes.

83
 Trim−n−fill Plot

0
0.079
Standard Error

0.158
0.237
0.316

−1 −0.5 0 0.5

Observed Outcome

Figure 6. Funnel plot of Fisher’s Z-transformed correlations for all included effect sizes (black dots) and
trim-and-fill analysis (white dots).

84