Achievement emotions constitute one important variable among the many variables of students’ learning. The aim of this research was to analyze the differential effect of university students’ levels of self-regulation (1 = low, 2 = medium and 3 = high), and of their level of perceived stress in three academic situations (1 = class, 2 = study time and 3 = testing), on the type of achievement emotionality they experience (positive and negative emotions). The following hypotheses were established: (1) a higher level of student self-regulation would be accompanied by higher levels of positive emotionality and lower levels of negative emotionality and (2) a higher level of situational stress would predispose higher levels of negative emotionality and lower levels of positive emotionality. A total of 520 university students completed three self-reports with validated inventories. Descriptive, correlational, and structural prediction analyses (SEM) were performed, as well as 3 × 3 ANOVAs, under an ex post facto design by selection. The results showed overall fulfillment of the hypotheses, except for a few specific emotions. Implications for prevention and psychoeducational guidance in the sphere of university education are discussed.

The combination of student Self-Regulation (SR) and the context of Regulatory Teaching (RT), each in varying degree, has recently been demonstrated to have effects on achievement emotions, factors and symptoms of stress, and coping strategies. The aim of the present research study is to verify its possible further effects, on academic behavioral confidence and procrastination. A total of 1193 university students completed validated online questionnaires with regard to specific subjects in their degree program. Using an ex post facto design, multivariate analyses and structural equation modeling (SEM) were carried out in order to test the relationships predicted by the model. SR and RT had a significant joint effect in determining the degree of academic behavioral confidence and of procrastination. Academic behavioral confidence also significantly predicted reasons for procrastinating, and these in turn predicted activities of procrastination. Conclusions are discussed, insisting on the combined weight of the two variables in determining academic behavioral confidence, reasons for procrastinating and activities subject to procrastination, in university students. Implications for guidance and educational support of university students and teachers are analyzed.

The aim of this research was to establish linear relations (association and prediction) and inferential relations between three constructs at different levels of psychological research –executive dysfunction(microanalysis),self-regulation(molecular level), andself-vs.external regulation(molar level), in the prediction of emotion regulation difficulties. We hypothesized that personal and contextual regulatory factors would be negatively related to levels of executive dysfunction and emotion regulation difficulties; by way of complement, non-regulatory and dysregulatory personal, and contextual factors would be positively related to these same difficulties. To establish relationships, we used a retrospective,ex postfacto design, where 298 university students voluntarily participated by completing standardized self-reports. Linear and structural correlational, predictive analyses were performed, as well as inferential analyses. Results were consistent and validated the proposed hypotheses, for both association and prediction. The most important result refers to the discriminant value of the five-level combination heuristic for predicting Executive Function and External (contextual) Dys-Regulation. In conclusion: (1) both personal and contextual regulation factors must be analyzed in order to better understand the variation in executive functions and emotion regulation difficulties; (2) it is important to continue connecting the different levels of the constructs referring to self-regulation, given their complementary role in the behavioral analysis of regulation difficulties.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to establish predictive relationships of the Big Five personality factors (according to their self-regulatory level), together with resilience (proactive and reactive factors), for factors and symptoms of academic stress related to teaching and learning in the University context. A total of 405 female undergraduate students were selected, and completed questionnaires that had been previously validated in Spanish University students (Big Five personality factors, resilience, and academic stress symptoms and factors). A linear, ex-post facto design was used, including linear regression, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and mediational analyses. Specific linear regression showed the expected gradation: that self-regulatory personality factors (conscientiousness, extraversion) were positive linear predictors of proactive resilience, as well as significant negative predictors of stress factors and symptoms of academic stress; while the non-regulatory personality factors (openness to experience, agreeableness) showed little relationship. By contrast, the dysregulatory personality factor (neuroticism) was a negative predictor of proactive resilience, a positive predictor of reactive resilience, and positively predicted academic stress factors in the teaching and learning process, as well as stress symptoms. SEM general analysis showed that personality factors positively predicted resilience, and resilience negatively predicted factors and symptoms of academic stress. Specific mediational model analysis, with each personality factor, confirmed the different mediating relationships that appeared in the linear regression analyses. These results are discussed from the perspective of promoting resilience and healthy personalities in the University context. Implications for addressing academic stress at University are discussed.

The turn to evidence-based interventions is significant for Psychology in general and for Educational Psychology in particular. Although there is a great deal of published evidence for program validation, there is currently no protocol for the evaluation of educational psychology evidence-based intervention programs and there is no General Register of such programs to act as a central information depository. This article has four objectives: (1) To assess the significance of the turn to Evidence-Based Programs in the context of today’s Knowledge Society and Research and Development, Transfer and Innovation (R&Di) activities; (2) To provide a Classification of Programs based on the degree of specialization required for appropriate professional use in line with the requirements of the Code of Ethics in Psychology; (3) To tentatively propose a Protocol for the Registration of Evidence-Based Educational Psychology Programs; and (4) Finally, to identify some implications of the protocol. We conclude that there is a need for a General Register of validated programs.