Breaking the Test-Anxiety Loop: Using Self-Regulated Learning to Improve Bar Exam Performance

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Winter 2022–2023 (Vol. 91, No. 4), pp. 7–14.

By Sarah M. Bonner, PhD

Taking high-stakes tests such as the bar examination causes stress for most people. This is normal, and a certain level of stress likely has a positive relationship with performance by increasing attention, focus, and motivation. According to the Yerkes-Dodson law,1 stress and performance have an inverted U-shaped relationship: under conditions of lowest stress, performance is low; under moderate stress, performance reaches its highest level; and under highest stress, performance again drops. Research has shown that this relationship between stress and performance varies among individuals. Each of us likely has our own inverted U-shaped curve, and a sweet spot of moderate level of stress that results in optimal performance. A situation such as taking the bar exam that stresses one person to the extent of diminishing performance may invoke only a moderate level of stress in another.

Those who feel highly stressed about test taking suffer from what is known as test anxiety. Test anxiety is a form of stress that occurs when an individual anticipates or takes a test.2 The level of stress that examinees with severe test anxiety experience far exceeds the typical nervousness many test takers face before or during a major exam.

Test anxiety can manifest in cognitive or physiological components. The cognitive dimension is characterized by worry. When examinees fret as they prepare for or take a test, they engage in fruitless self-preoccupation.3 Worried examinees therefore have less mental space to attend to the business at hand, whether it be studying or responding to test questions. Many researchers consider worry to be an executive functioning problem that interferes with performance by overloading working memory4 with task-irrelevant thoughts.5 Though test anxiety among graduate students is infrequently studied, a 2005 study found that 15% of masters and doctoral degree students experienced high test anxiety, and that test anxiety occurred most frequently among women.6

According to the cognitive interference model of test anxiety,7 worry can affect thinking to such a degree that it is not feasible for some individuals to demonstrate their actual competency under testing conditions.8 Because test anxiety may create variance in scores that has nothing to do with a test taker’s competency, it distorts the connection between the examinee’s proficiency and the score they obtain on a test. If test anxiety can cause such a distortion of bar exam scores, it’s important for those preparing students for the bar exam to be aware of and attend to that problem. This article discusses the causes and effects of test anxiety, the concept of self-regulated learning, and how applying self-regulated learning strategies to practice testing can shift the experience of test anxiety.

How Does Test Anxiety Affect Academic Performance?

Research consistently reveals a negative correlation between test anxiety and performance. In a 2018 analysis combining the findings from 238 studies, researchers examined the relationships between test anxiety and a wide range of achievement indicators, such as grade point average and scores on university entrance exams.9 The estimated effects across all measures of achievement were negative. The meta-analysis included seven studies of test anxiety and performance on professional examinations similar to the bar exam. The researchers found a pooled relationship estimate between test anxiety and exam scores of −.22; in other words, anxiety accounted for an estimated five percent of variance in scores on professional examinations. Though this is a modest effect, it should not be taken lightly. Even small negative effects of test anxiety on bar exam scores can have significant life consequences for examinees.

Where Does Test Anxiety Come From?

When individuals are in situations that call for them to demonstrate achievement, such as testing, some feel positive emotions: hope, enjoyment, and pride. Others feel hopelessness or shame. Examinees may have conflicting emotions, swinging from hope to fear as if riding a roller coaster. The control-value theory of achievement emotions10—a theory that explains the psychological causes of test anxiety—holds that negative achievement emotions (such as test anxiety) stem from patterns of thinking and believing. Fortunately, test takers can change these patterns of thinking. More productive thinking can shift negative emotions to more positive ones, reducing cognitive interference and helping anxious test takers perform at their best.

This theory posits that people form emotions in light of their appraisals of themselves and their situations. The theory posits that individuals’ emotions about an achievement outcome, such as test performance, and achievement activities, such as test taking, are partly determined by their appraisal of the test outcome’s value, and their control over that outcome.

Because we can take as a given that bar examinees highly value their test outcome, this theory then draws attention to how examinees perceive their control over the outcome as a possible influence on test anxiety. Individuals appraise their control over test outcomes in ways largely shaped by beliefs about themselves, prior testing experiences, and the current testing situation. Appraisal of control also partly derives from the perceived nature of the test (e.g., an examinee who believes a test is unfair will have a low sense of situational control) and examinees’ perceptions about the availability of useful actions they may take to prevent test failure (action control).

Both situational control and action control affect test takers’ anticipations of success and failure. Test takers’ beliefs about their competence to take actions to achieve outcomes in the tested domain is known as self-efficacy.11 In general, test takers have high self-efficacy when they feel they have some control over the test situation and are confident in their skills. Test takers have low self-efficacy when they feel they have no control over the test situation and lack the skills to succeed—they lack confidence in their success and expect failure. In high-stakes testing situations, these examinees may feel intense anxiety or even hopelessness.

The Test-Anxiety Loop

The chain from test taking, to perceived control, to test anxiety, and finally to test outcome is not one of straightforward cause and effect. The effects of prior testing experiences over time must be considered.12 Emotion has certain effects on performance; reflection on the results of performance generates new emotions. For test-anxious individuals, a disappointing score on a single exam gives rise to renewed anxiety, which can result in repeated, lower-than-optimal performance. Some research has shown that this cycle can endure for years.13

The anxiety loop for test-anxious individuals taking the bar exam for the first time might look like this: Is the bar exam important to me? Yes, very much so. Do I have control over the testing situation? No. Are there actions I can take to prevent failure? I don’t know of any. How do I feel? Anxious. What do I experience during the exam? I worry about outcomes, I second-guess myself, I get distracted by irrelevant things like my physical environment and surface features of the test—ordinary vocabulary, names used in examples, and even formatting. My attention is scattered.

How will this test-anxious bar applicant perform? It is possible that even if they are reasonably competent, they will not pass the bar exam. They can, of course, retake the exam, but unless they address the factors that interfered with their past performance, they will likely experience the same sense of low control and anxiety the next time.

Breaking the Test-Anxiety Loop

How can the text-anxious examinee break out of the cycle of stress over testing, lack of perceived control, anxiety, worry, cognitive interference, and below-optimal performance? Studies suggest that examinees can learn to regulate their emotions directly or indirectly.14 Techniques like relaxation and meditation can help control emotions directly. Empirical research shows that the direct approach can be quite effective in reducing test anxiety among university students.15 Also, examinees can learn to control their emotions indirectly, and work to change the appraisal that cause their anxiety, by practicing self-regulated learning.

Self-Regulated Learning in Three Phases

Self-regulated learning is a theoretical construct that describes how learners initiate, strategize, and sustain actions to achieve their desired goals. The model described below highlights processes that learners can use to appraise, manage, and adjust their behaviors, cognition, emotions, and environment, and delineates three phases of self-regulated learning.16

1. The Forethought Phase

Prior to taking a test like the bar exam, future examinees make appraisals. In addition to forming expectations of success or failure, they appraise their self-efficacy for actions they can take to achieve success on the upcoming test. Such appraisals ignite emotions. Negative self-appraisals likely result in negative emotions, such as test anxiety.

2. The Performance Phase

According to theory, highly self-regulated learners monitor their progress and focus their attention while they are taking a test. These activities require self-control and self-observation strategies. It is important to note that if examinees need to engage in many such strategies during test taking itself, such thoughts may begin to compete with attention to the content, and end in the same cognitive interference as worry. Therefore, future examinees must internalize self-regulation strategies so they can use them with little to no conscious effort. Fluent self-regulation comes only with practice.

3. The Reflection Phase

In this phase, examinees self-evaluate by comparing their performance against their own goals, external standards, peer performance, or, in the context of the bar exam, the passing standard set by their testing jurisdiction. They also make causal attributions, answering questions in their minds like, “Why did I pass?” or “Why did I fail?” They react to their self-appraisals both cognitively and emotionally. Based on their level of satisfaction with their performance, they may increase their self-efficacy and set higher goals for future attempts. Or they may be dissatisfied and decide to change their test-taking strategies.

Practice testing has consistently been associated with improvements in test-taker performance, even compared to other methods of studying, and its positive effects can be quite large.

The Role of Practice Tests

Self-regulated learning needs opportunities for application and practice. The following section focuses on strategies to support learning from practice tests.17 Practice testing has consistently been associated with improvements in test-taker performance, even compared to other methods of studying, and its positive effects can be quite large.18 Practice testing is effective for multiple reasons, not least of which is that it allows examinees to revisit content they have learned. However, for the text-anxious examinee, refreshing such material is not enough. These examinees also need to develop self-regulatory skills.

Fortunately, practice tests provide an ideal context in which to use self-regulated learning strategies. Practice tests afford low-stakes opportunities to initiate forethought processes such as planning, task analysis, and apprising one’s self-efficacy (see the next section for more on these processes). In content and format, practice tests are highly consistent with the actual bar exam; thus, performance phase strategies that candidates use on practice tests will also be relevant when they take the real exam.

Practice tests also include opportunities for external feedback, whether through an answer key at the back of the test, automated error flagging on computerized practice tests, or detailed explanations for sample questions. Because bar applicants typically take multiple practice tests, the process of practice testing is a near-perfect fit to the iterative development of self-regulated learning. Repeated practice testing gives examinees familiarity and an increasing sense of control over their performance on the bar exam, which gradually reduces test anxiety.

The Three Phases of Self-Regulated Learning Applied to Practice Testing

1. Practicing Forethought

Task analysis, a major component of forethought, involves the related processes of goal setting and strategic planning. In self-regulated learning, these two processes go hand in hand: “When students link their strategic plans for learning to short and long-term goals in a sequential or hierarchical system, they can practice effectively by themselves over long periods of time.”19 The following cognitive and behavioral processes support self-regulation during forethought:

Self-efficacy appraisal. Test takers should use such appraisals to direct their daily or per-session efforts, and not focus only on areas of perceived weakness. Of course, they should target and work to improve in subject areas where they perform relatively poorly. However, a key source of improving self-efficacy is also through focusing on the areas in which they can master success and experience positive emotions.20
Resource management. Future test takers should avail themselves of multiple resources to help them understand the task they will face when taking the bar exam. Such resources include human resources: conversations with others who have recently taken the bar exam, as well as bar admissions staff, can help dispel worry. Test takers should also prepare their own resources, such as outlines of principles in each subject area, and have those available as references during practice testing. Practice testers should gradually withdraw such external resources as they continue to practice, because no opportunities for external help-seeking will be available during the bar exam.
Goal setting. Practice testers should set performance goals (e.g., the percent of items they want to succeed on, time to completion). Over multiple practice sessions, they should gradually adjust their performance goals to levels that align with mastery and real test conditions.

2. Practicing Performance

What techniques for self-regulation can test takers use during testing? Various forms of self-monitoring and self-instructional techniques promote attentional focus and control. In my research on the cognitive processes of recent law school graduates while taking practice bar exams (supported by NCBE’s Joe E. Covington Award in 2004),21 I found that the use of self-monitoring was strongly associated with higher scores on practice items from the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE).22 The following cognitive and behavioral processes support self-regulation during practice testing:

Time management. Practice tests provide an excellent opportunity for examinees to begin to internalize a pace for taking the full bar exam, particularly the MBE. While it may not be ideal for examinees to start timing their performance at the very start of practice, they should intentionally learn how much time they are spending overall on tests, their average time per item, their average time per item under real testing conditions, and so on. As with physical exercise, one builds to a pace that seemed impossible at first, but in time it becomes as natural as walking.
Self-questioning and self-recording. There is nothing wrong with talking to oneself in the privacy of practice testing. The question that resolves itself when put into words motivates the examinee to continue to use such strategies. When an examinee cannot answer their own question, they should keep a record of it and make a point of addressing it later.
Graphical representation. This is a form of self-instruction. Examples of such strategies include using a marking system to flag items for reappraisal, underlining or circling key problem features, and using marks to prioritize attention to the most plausible distractors (incorrect answer choices).

Findings of the author’s paper receiving NCBE’s 2004 Joe E. Covington Award for Research on Testing for Licensure, titled “A Substantive Process Validity Study of Multistate Bar Examination Items Through Verbal Protocol Analysis,” are summarized in the following Bar Examiner article.

Sarah M. Bonner, PhD, “A Think-Aloud Approach to Understanding Performance on the Multistate Bar Examination,” 75(1) The Bar Examiner 6–15 (February 2006).

3. Practicing Reflection

Reflection involves both reflection on the performance outcome (i.e., the score), and reflection on the cause of that outcome. At this stage, bar applicants assess themselves in terms of “Where am I?,” “How did I get here?,” “Where do I want to be?,” and “What next?” The following cognitive and behavioral processes support self-regulation during reflection:

Self-assessment. After taking a practice test, before checking the answer key or obtaining a score report, the test taker should attempt to assess themselves. After a practice test, an examinee can estimate their score based on the number of answered items about which they were highly confident.
Use of feedback. The test taker should also make use of all feedback methods provided with the practice tests they used, and interpret their external feedback in light of their own goals, not in terms of an absolute. If they aimed to score 70% on a 20-item practice test, a score of 75% is outstanding. In practice tests, near-passing counts. Also, they can use their practice test results as part of a running record of progress toward the long-term goal of passing the bar exam.
Attributional control. People attribute outcomes to various causes: causes within and outside their control, causes they view as malleable or stable. For instance, the person who says, “I failed because the test is unfair!” attributes their performance outcome to a cause that is stable and out of their control. Causal attributions influence future actions, and therefore play a key role in self-regulation. Certain kinds of attributions prompt us to dissociate from challenging situations or avoid making strategic changes. Others prompt us to focus on our own learning. The latter kinds of attributions, of course, are those a self-regulated learner should adopt. After reviewing their performance outcomes, examinees can consciously and intentionally note those causes of their performance that are both malleable and within their control. They can use that information as they plan for the next iteration of practice.

The Experience of Test Anxiety Shifts with Self-Regulated Learning

Let us consider a test-anxious examinee who practices for the bar exam as a self-regulated learner. This test taker contemplates the practice test with forethought, sets goals, and has some self-efficacy for action control. Does this test taker still feel test anxiety? Yes, but belief in their ability to control the outcome with specific strategies, however slight, makes this examinee feel a bit less worried than usual.

After forethought, the test taker begins the practice test. They use self-monitoring and self-observation as they work through test items. These strategies help keep them focused on task-relevant thinking processes, instead of worry and self-preoccupation. Thus, to the extent that their anxiety has interfered with past outcomes, their outcome improves—not by much, and maybe not the first time, but some.

After performing, this examinee reflects. They compare their outcome to their goals and to an external target. Their relative self-satisfaction about their practice test score leads to greater overall self-efficacy, confidence when appraising strategies, further reduced text anxiety and worry, and continuing score improvements on future practice tests. They begin to use many self-regulated strategies without conscious effort. Gradually, over multiple iterations of practice, this examinee can hit the sweet spot of stress that will produce their highest performance outcome.

Helping the Test-Anxious Applicant to the Bar

One might think this would be easy—that by the time someone applies to the bar, they would not need support to self-regulate. Unfortunately, for the highly test-anxious individual, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional control flies out the window once worry begins. This bar examinee must intentionally learn strategies to improve their perception of control in testing situations.

Fortunately, self-regulation is a learned behavior, and it can be taught. Law school academic support offices or wellness centers, which already help students quell test anxiety through techniques such as relaxation and mindfulness, can add to their offerings with workshops on self-regulated learning. Organizations that offer courses in bar preparation can include self-regulated learning content and opportunities to practice in their curriculum. Others involved in the bar examination process can also help the test-anxious bar applicant by producing resources such as webinars and videos that model self-regulated learning skills for testing.

Test anxiety only rarely reaches the diagnostic criteria that allow for the granting of test accommodations.23 To do that requires very strong evidence of debilitating effects. However, many bar applicants suffer from high test anxiety that does not meet diagnostic criteria. In July 2022, 44,705 applicants took the MBE. If 15% of them (predominantly women) suffered from high test anxiety,24 then over 6,700 applicants received scores possibly influenced by cognitive interference due to test anxiety.

How many competent examinees fail the bar exam because of excessive worry? No one knows. However many, when bar exam candidates have resources to supplement their practice testing with self-regulated learning strategies, they will be better able to earn scores that reflect their real competence, without interference from test anxiety.

Notes

The Yerkes-Dodson law is a model developed in 1908 by psychologists Robert M. Yerkes and John Dillingham Dodson that describes the relationship between stress and performance. (Go back)
J. C. Cassady, “Test Anxiety: Contemporary Theories and Implications for Learning,” in Anxiety in Schools: The Causes, Consequences, and Solutions for Academic Anxieties 7–26 (J. C. Cassady ed., Peter Lang 2010). (Go back)
I.G. Sarason, “Stress, Anxiety, and Cognitive Interference: Reactions to Tests,” 46(4) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 929–938 (April 1984). (Go back)
Working memory is a part of the memory system that temporarily holds a small amount of information used to perform cognitive tasks, as opposed to long-term memory, which holds the amount of information saved during a person’s lifetime. (Go back)
M. W. Eysenck and N. Derakshan, “New Perspectives in Attentional Control Theory,” 50(7) Personality and Individual Differences 955–960 (May 2011); D. W. Putwain, A. L. Daly, S. Chamberlain, and S. Sadreddini, “‘Sink or Swim’: Buoyancy and Coping in the Cognitive Test Anxiety–Academic Performance Relationship,” 36(10) Educational Psychology 1807–1825 (2016). (Go back)
M. S. Chapell, Z. B. Blanding, M. E. Silverstein, M. Takahashi, B. Newman, B. A. Gubi, and N. McCann, “Test Anxiety and Academic Performance in Undergraduate and Graduate Students,” 97(2) Journal of Educational Psychology 268–274 (2005). (Go back)
See supra note 3. (Go back)
M. Zeidner, “Test Anxiety in Educational Contexts: Concepts, Findings, and Future Directions,” in Emotion in Education 165–184 (Academic Press 2007). (Go back)
N. von der Embse, D. Jester, D. Roy, and J. Post, “Test Anxiety Effects, Predictors, and Correlates: A 30-Year Meta-Analytic Review,” 227 Journal of Affective Disorders 483–493 (February 2018). (Go back)
R. Pekrun, “The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice,” 18(4) Educational Psychology Review 315–341 (2006). (Go back)
A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action (Prentice Hall 1986). (Go back)
R. Pekrun, T. Goetz, W. Titz, and R. P. Perry, “Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research,” 37(2) Educational Psychologist 91–105 (2002). (Go back)
See supra note 11 for citations. (Go back)
Supra note 11. (Go back)
C. D. Huntley, B. Young, J. Temple, M. Longworth, C. T. Smith, V. Jha, and P. L. Fisher, “The Efficacy of Interventions for Test-Anxious University Students: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” 63 Journal of Anxiety Disorders 36–50 (2019). (Go back)
This model is the social cognitive model developed by educational psychologist Barry Zimmerman, which emphasizes intentional learning. B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview,” 41(2) Theory into Practice 64–70 (2002). (Go back)
A useful review of highly efficacious study methods can be found in J. Dunlosky and K. A. Rawson, “Practice Tests, Spaced Practice, and Successive Relearning: Tips for Classroom Use and for Guiding Students’ Learning,” 1(1) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 72 (2015). (Go back)
O. O. Adesope, D. A. Trevisan, and N. Sundararajan, “Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing,” 87(3) Review of Educational Research 659–701 (2017). (Go back)
B. J. Zimmerman and A. R. Moylan, “Self-Regulation: Where Metacognition and Motivation Intersect,” in Handbook of Metacognition in Education 299–316 (Routledge 2009). (Go back)
Supra note 12. (Go back)
Editor’s Note: NCBE’s Joe E. Covington Award for Research on Testing for Licensure honors Joe E. Covington, a former dean of the University of Missouri–Columbia School of Law who was NCBE’s first Director of Testing and was largely responsible for creating and launching the MBE. The award is intended to provide support for graduate students in any discipline doing research germane to testing and measurement, particularly in a high-stakes licensure setting. (Go back)
S. M. Bonner, and J. V. D’Agostino, “A Substantive Process Analysis of Responses to Items from the Multistate Bar Examination,” 25(1) Applied Measurement in Education 1–26 (2012). (Go back)
An individual seeking test accommodations on grounds of test anxiety would need to show evidence of a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Accommodations for test anxiety are not required by law under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Go back)
Supra note 6. (Go back)

NCBE’s Efforts to Help Students Prepare for the Bar Exam

NCBE is committed to helping students prepare for the bar exam. Here are examples of our efforts to ensure that students have the resources and materials they need as they study for the exam.

NCBE Study Aid Materials

BarNow^® Study Aids

The Bar Exam Study Basics video further suggests that students consider using BarNow^® to support their exam preparation. BarNow, NCBE’s affordable, authentic, online study aids platform, offers students retired questions, as well as tools such as timers, feedback, and explanations, at a low cost. BarNow materials help students become more familiar with the types of questions NCBE develops for the bar exam and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE).

Students can log into BarNow and practice at their convenience. They can track their progress by reviewing their individual statistics after completing a test, rate their confidence levels as they complete each question, and make notes or add bookmarks to review later.

Each study aid offers select features to help students better understand what to study. In the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and MPRE simulated exams, they see their percent of questions correct plus answer explanations. In the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) and Multistate Performance Test (MPT) study aids, they can practice answering each question or item in a timed environment; they can also review the NCBE model answer and download analyses and point sheets directly from the platform to use at their convenience.

BarNow study aids are available on the NCBE Study Aids Store (store.ncbex.org).

Free Study Resources

NCBE also offers the following resources free of charge, based on retired questions: MBE sample test questions with answer key; MEE questions from the most recent exam administration, and MEE questions from older administrations with analyses; MPT summaries from recent administrations, and MPTs and Point Sheets from older administrations; and MPRE sample test questions with answer key.

These free study resources are available from the Study Aids page of the NCBE website (ncbex.org/study-aids/).

Bar Exam Study Basics Video

In 2021, NCBE released a short video, Bar Exam Study Basics, summarizing some best practices on how to study for the bar exam. The video aims to provide a short, free, accessible, and evidence-based resource for students preparing to take the bar exam. Its content is grounded in cognitive science research on learning and memory and reflects lessons NCBE staff have learned in working with the Council on Legal Opportunity Inc. (CLEO) to support students as they prepare for the bar exam.

The video suggests spacing out study sessions to best support memory encoding and later recall; building in knowledge checks and evaluation of accuracy; including regular checks on the ability to answer questions without accessing notes or outlines and within time limits; focusing on stress reduction and self-care; and considering mindsets and the importance of a positive attitude and strengths-based study strategies.

NCBE’s Partnership with CLEO

Since October 2018, NCBE has collaborated with CLEO to support our shared goal of increasing diversity and inclusion in the legal profession. Through the partnership, NCBE provides funding to bolster CLEO’s programs that help individuals from traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and disadvantaged communities succeed in law school and prepare to take and pass the bar exam.

The NCBE/CLEO Bar Passage Program ensures that CLEO students nationwide are able to receive consistent support throughout their law school careers. The program allows mentors, and their mentees, to be better connected by working with each other on a more consistent basis, giving mentors a more in-depth understanding of students’ study habits, which helps them offer better guidance and tailored advice. Students receive coordinated training on strategies for success during law school from law professors with extensive experience in academic and bar support programming at their respective law schools.

CLEO students participating in the Bar Passage Program also gain access to hundreds of practice problems and review materials; in addition, they can answer practice essay questions and receive custom feedback on their written work.

For more information about NCBE’s partnership with CLEO, see the following news releases and Bar Examiner article:

NCBE and CLEO Announce New Collaboration (October 26, 2018), https://www.ncbex.org/news/cleo-collaboration/
NCBE and CLEO Extend Partnership to Better Diversify the Legal Profession (July 16, 2020), https://www.ncbex.org/news/ncbe-cleo-extend-partnership/
Cassandra Sneed Ogden and Lynda Cevallos, Esq., “Focus on Diversity: Great Lawyers—Becoming and Belonging: The NCBE/CLEO Partnership Prepares Students to Climb the Mountain,” 90(1) The Bar Examiner 69–72 (Spring 2021)

Sarah M. Bonner, PhD, is Professor of Educational Psychology at the City University of New York’s Hunter College, where she teaches educational assessment courses. Her main area of research is the study of cognitive processes that underlie academic test performance and their relation to validity of test score interpretation. Dr. Bonner received her PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Arizona with specialization in educational measurement and research methodology.