Table 2 LMM/GLMM results

Predictors	β	CI	t / z	p	R²
Model A: LMM for paradigm and trait math anxiety on state math anxiety					0.87
(intercept)	1.57	1.42 – 1.72	20.74	< 0.001
paradigm	0.29	0.21 – 0.38	6.64	< 0.001
trait math anxiety	0.28	0.06 – 0.50	2.52	0.013
paradigm × trait math anxiety	0.24	0.11 – 0.37	3.64	< 0.001
Model B: LMM for trait math anxiety and paradigm on response time					0.42
(intercept)	3.96	3.75 – 4.16	37.58	< 0.001
paradigm	0.41	0.30 – 0.52	7.43	< 0.001
trait math anxiety	0.36	0.06 – 0.65	2.38	0.017
paradigm × trait math anxiety
Model C: GLMM for trait math anxiety and paradigm on accuracy					0.15
(intercept)	2.68	2.53 – 2.82	35.42	< 0.001
paradigm	-0.28	-0.40 – -0.16	-4.46	< 0.001
trait math anxiety	-0.21	-0.41 – 0.00	-1.93	0.053
paradigm × trait math anxiety
Model D: LMM for three-time points analysis on state math anxiety					0.70
(intercept)	1.73	1.59 – 1.87	23.95	< 0.001
time	-0.30	-0.39 – -0.22	-7.32	< 0.001
trait math anxiety	0.60	0.39 – 0.81	5.63	< 0.001
time × trait math anxiety	-0.31	-0.43 – -0.19	-5.07	< 0.001
time²
time² × trait math anxiety
Model E: LMM results for six-time points analysis on state math anxiety					0.75
(intercept)	1.72	1.48 – 1.96	14.03	< 0.001
time	-0.11	-0.13 – -0.08	-8.96	< 0.001
trait math anxiety	0.40	0.18 – 0.62	3.65	< 0.001
time × trait math anxiety	-0.07	-0.11 – -0.04	-3.96	< 0.001
time²
time² × trait math anxiety

Notes. All models shown here are reduced models. t value for LMM and z value for GLMM. Bold values indicate statistical significance. Time and trait math anxiety were centered. Paradigm was dummy coded with decision paradigm as reference for production paradigm. Conditional R² quantifies the proportion of variance explained by the entire model, including both fixed and random effects. Excluded factors from the full models are shown in italics. Full model specifications and model selection procedures are detailed in Table S3.

Quick links

Search