Javier Ortuño-Sierra1, Lorena García-Velasco2, Félix Inchausti3, Martin Debbané4, Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero5. 1. Department of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Spain. 2. Department of Psychology, International University of La Rioja, Spain. 3. Hospital Benito Menni of Elizondo, Spain. 4. Office Médico-Pédagogique, Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Geneva School of Medicine, Switzerland Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Educational Sciences, University of La Rioja, Spain Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM).
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The main purpose of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI1). Previous studies have indicated different factor solutions. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of consensus about the best dimensional model of STAI scores. METHOD: The sample consisted of 417 participants, composed of 387 (29.71% male) healthy participants (comparison group: M=35.5 years; SD=8.40), and 30 (36.66% male) patient (clinical group M=35.8 years; SD=12.94). RESULTS: The internal consistency evaluated through Ordinal Alpha was good, 0.98 and 0.94 in the non-clinical and the clinical samples, respectively. Test-retest reliability (two weeks) for Total Score was 0.81 for the non-clinical subsample, and 0.93 for the clinical subsample. Confirmatory factor analyses supported both a four factor model and bifactor model. Also, STAI scores showed statistically significant correlations with Burns Anxiety Inventory (Burns-A) scores. Furthermore, results showed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the STAI between the clinical and the non-clinical subsamples. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the STAI were adequate. The present study contributes to better understand the STAI structure through the comparison of new approaches in the study of the STAI internal structure. The results found may contribute in the efforts to improve the evaluation and identification of anxiety symptoms and disorders.
INTRODUCTION: The main purpose of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI1). Previous studies have indicated different factor solutions. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of consensus about the best dimensional model of STAI scores. METHOD: The sample consisted of 417 participants, composed of 387 (29.71% male) healthy participants (comparison group: M=35.5 years; SD=8.40), and 30 (36.66% male) patient (clinical group M=35.8 years; SD=12.94). RESULTS: The internal consistency evaluated through Ordinal Alpha was good, 0.98 and 0.94 in the non-clinical and the clinical samples, respectively. Test-retest reliability (two weeks) for Total Score was 0.81 for the non-clinical subsample, and 0.93 for the clinical subsample. Confirmatory factor analyses supported both a four factor model and bifactor model. Also, STAI scores showed statistically significant correlations with Burns Anxiety Inventory (Burns-A) scores. Furthermore, results showed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the STAI between the clinical and the non-clinical subsamples. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the STAI were adequate. The present study contributes to better understand the STAI structure through the comparison of new approaches in the study of the STAI internal structure. The results found may contribute in the efforts to improve the evaluation and identification of anxiety symptoms and disorders.
Authors: Beatrice Beebe; Christina W Hoven; Marsha Kaitz; Miriam Steele; George Musa; Amy Margolis; Julie Ewing; K Mark Sossin; Sang Han Lee Journal: Infancy Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: Fernanda Brenneisen Mayer; Itamar Souza Santos; Paulo S P Silveira; Maria Helena Itaqui Lopes; Alicia Regina Navarro Dias de Souza; Eugenio Paes Campos; Benedita Andrade Leal de Abreu; Itágores Hoffman Ii; Cleidilene Ramos Magalhães; Maria Cristina P Lima; Raitany Almeida; Mateus Spinardi; Patricia Tempski Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Ariel J Lang; Anne Malaktaris; Katrina S Maluf; Julie Kangas; Selin Sindel; Matthew Herbert; Jessica Bomyea; Alan N Simmons; Judy Weaver; Deborah Velez; Lin Liu Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-01-28
Authors: Daniel Bonnar; Sangha Lee; Brandy M Roane; Daniel J Blum; Michal Kahn; Eunhee Jang; Ian C Dunican; Michael Gradisar; Sooyeon Suh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jennifer Brunet; Amanda Wurz; Julia Hussien; Anne Pitman; Ellen Conte; Julie K Ennis; Christophe L Herry; Andrew J E Seely; Dugald Seely Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.077