The 21^st century world has become more complex and the people in this rapidly changing world face many demands and challenges in their lives.   As a result, stress appears to be a common experience in the lives of all individuals (Sedere, 2010; Sonali, 2018) that may lead to serious psychological and physical problems (Kamaruddin, et al., 2015). Individuals may confront stress from various sources that may be internal or external (Lin & Yusoff, 2013).  Within academic environments, students may confront stress from a number of sources including a heavy academic workload (Sonali, 2018), examinations (Attiya et al., 2007; Sedere, 2010; Sonali, 2018), pressure from parents, teachers, and society to perform well (Deb et al., 2014), negative consequences of failures (Attiya et al., 2007), competition with other students (Attiya et al., 2007; Sedere, 2010; Sonali, 2018), and conflicting interests (Sedere, 2010).  Of these sources, examinations appear to cause substantial stress among students (Spangler et al., 2002). Examinations are widely used around the world as powerful tools for educational as well as occupational decision-making.  Especially, in Sri Lanka, public examination is the only mean available to prove that one has learnt the expected subject content to secure educational opportunities at the next level.  Many Sri Lankan adolescent students experience stress due to the competitive academic examinations that they are required to pass in order to progress in their education (Ministry of Education, 2013; Nastasi et al., 2007; Rodrigo et al., 2010; Sedere, 2010).  Indeed, limited access to higher education in Sri Lanka was identified as the main cause for the high levels of academic competition and stress among adolescent students in the country (Ministry of Education Sri Lanka, 2013; Nastasi et al., 2007).  A need therefore exists to examine how these students cope with the stress.  Coping with examination stress and its consequences may be considered to be an important capacity for students to achieve their goals and expectations as well as for their psychological and physical wellbeing (Zeidner, 1995).  Coping behaviours are conscious strategies including cognitive and behavioural efforts used by individuals to manage stressful situations (Lazarus, 1991).  Various approaches of coping have postulated that many contextual and personal variables are influential in the coping process.  For example, Moos’ model of context, coping, and adaptation describes coping as an interplay between contextual and personal systems (Chun, Moos, & Cronkite, 2006).  This model suggests that the contextual system consists of the aspects of the environment such as the social climate, ongoing stressors, and social resources (e.g., family & work).  On the other hand, personal system is composed of personal characteristics and personal resources such as cognitive abilities, personality traits, social competence, and self-confidence.  In supporting this model, Kaplan and Sadock (1998) defined Cognitive Intelligence (CI) as the capacity of an individual to understand, think, learn, recall, and think rationally to find solutions for problems to manage new situations, which may include stressful situations. Moreover, several researchers have identified Cognitive Intelligence as one of the major personal factors that may influence coping processes.  For instance, Shaunessy and Suldo (2010) have asserted that individuals use their personal characteristics such as their cognitive, emotional, and behavioural skills to respond to stressors.  However, only a fewer attempts have been made to date to examine the nature of the relationship between intelligence and coping ability in exam situations. Thus, the present study aims to examine the role of CI in coping with examination stress among adolescent students in Sri Lankan schools using a mixed method design.  

This study consisted of two consecutive phases and used exploratory sequential mixed method design. The first, qualitative phase examined how CI factors shape the process of coping with examination stress through the development of models of coping processes using grounded theory methodology. In this phase, 27 adolescent students in the collegiate level classes who were preparing to sit General Certificate of Education (Advanced Level) exam in August 2020 were interviewed. It is nevertheless noted due to the covid-19 pandemic situation, schools were closed until July 2020 and the final exam was postponed to October 2020. Two alternative models were developed using the interview data to explain how the CI factors shape the process of coping with examination stress. The second phase tested and refined the models that developed in the first phase of the study using structural equation modelling procedures on survey data collected from 357 adolescent students in Grade 13 (collegiate level) classes in the government schools in Jaffna and Anuradhapura Educational Zones in Sri Lanka. The survey instrument used for the second phase was developed based on the factors identified in the first phase of the study. Items from existing scales/instruments with good psychometric properties were given priority in the development of items in the survey instrument in this study. In addition, some new items that emerged from the interview data were included in the survey instrument. The data from the completed surveys were initially input into IBM SPSS statistics (version 26.0), with missing data, which comprised less than 2.5% of total data, imputed using Expectation Maximization (EM) method and then exported into LISREL 8.80 to test the hypothesised model.

Firstly, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to estimate the full measurement models that comprised all the eight factors in the CI models developed in the first phase of the study. The fit of these models was assessed. After removing the items that were identified as weak contributors to the latent variables, the model resulted comprised five factors had no more problematic issues and a fair fit (i.e., χ²= 463.49, df = 242, p < .01, χ²/df = 1.92, RMSEA= 0.05, NFI= .89; NNFI = .93, CFI= .94, SRMR= .06) to the data. After establishing the psychometric properties of the five confirmed factors, structural models for CI models were estimated. After removing the non-significant paths from the initially estimated structural model of Model I, the resulting structural model contained no problematic issues and an acceptable level if fit (χ² = 260.62, df = 102, p < .01; χ²/df = 2.56; RMSEA = 0.066; NFI = .902; NNFI = 0.927; CFI = .938; SRMR = .062; GFI = .917; AGFI = .889) to the data. Meanwhile, initially estimated model of Model II contained no negative error variance issues but comprised two non-significant paths and they were removed progressively. The resulting structural model contained no problematic issues and an acceptable level of fit (χ² = 388.33, df = 167, p < .01; χ²/df = 2.33; RMSEA = 0.061; NFI = .883; NNFI = 0.920; CFI = .929; SRMR = .069; GFI = .902; AGFI = .877) to the data. The refined versions of Model I and Model II have similar levels of fit to the data. Of the two models the refined version of Model II that supported three direct relationships appeared to be optimal, as it best described the relationship between Cognitive Intelligence and Coping with Examination Stress, required least modification from Stage I models, and exhibited satisfactory fit to the data.

Attiya, M., Al Kamil, E. A. & Sharif, S. (2007). Stress & coping strategies among medical students in Basrah. The medical journal of Basrah University, 25(2), 27–32. Chun, C. A., Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In P. T. P. Wong and L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29-53). Boston, MA:Springer. Deb, S., Strodl, E. & Sun, J. (2014). Academic related stress among private secondary school students in India. Asian Education and Development studies, 3(2), 118–134. Kamaruddin, S. N. D. M., Izehari, Z. F., Sukimin, I. S., Abdullah, N. & Zahidi, A. M. (2015). Coping strategies employed by Malaysian Pre-University gifted students to manage examination stress. Asian Social Science, 11(28), 155–161. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. Lin, H. J. & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2013). Psychological distress, sources of stress & coping strategy in high school students, International Medical Journal, 20(6), 1–6. Ministry of Education Sri Lanka. (2013). Education First Sri Lanka. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.lk/tamil/images/publications/Education_First_SL/Education_First_SL.pdf Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., Sarkar, S. & Jayasena, A. (2007). Assessing adolescents understanding of and reactions to stress in different cultures: Results of a mixed method approach. School psychology international, 28(2), 163–178. Rodrigo, C., Welgama, S., Gurusinghe, J., Wijeratne, T., Jayananda, G., & Rajapakse, S. (2010). Symptoms of anxiety and depression in adolescent students; a perspective from Sri Lanka. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 4(10). Retrieved from https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1753-2000-4-10 Sedere, U. M. (2010). Towards a stress free education: International Perspective. Paper presented at the 5th annual academic sessions, Faculty of Education of the Open University of Sri Lanka. Shaunessy, E. & Suldo, S. M. (2010). Strategies used by intellectually gifted students to cope with stress during their participation in a high school international Baccalaureate program. Gifted child quarterly, 54(2), 127-137. Sonali, S. (2018). A comparative study of academic stress among senior secondary students enrolled in different streams. Research Guru, 12(2), 1038–1053. Spangler, G. Pekrun, R. Kramer, K. & Hofmann, H. (2002). Students’ emotions, physiological reactions & coping in academic exams. Anxiety, stress & coping, 15(4), 413–432. Zeidner, M. (1995). Adaptive coping with test situations: A review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 30(3), 123–133.