Skip to main content
Log in

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children: Age, Gender and Clinical Invariance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children (PSWQ-C) is one of the most frequently used instruments to assess worry in children. The current study examines the measurement invariance of the PSWQ-C in a Romanian sample. Participants (n = 759) were recruited from both community and clinical populations. Our findings have replicated the good psychometric properties of the PSWQ-C and of the short PSWQ-C (the original scale with the negative items deleted). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis has supported measurement invariance (configural, metric, scalar) across gender, age and clinical diagnosis. Convergent validity with other assessment measures has also been established. Finally, the implications of the use of the PSWQ-C in the assessment of anxiety in children and adolescents are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Borkovec TD, Robinson E, Pruzinsky T, DePree JA (1983) Preliminary exploration of worry: some characteristics and processes. Behav Res Ther 21:9–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borkovec TD (1994) The nature, functions, and origins of worry. In: Davey GCL, Tallis F (eds) Worrying: perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment. Wiley, Oxford, pp 5–33

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pruzinsky T, Borkovec TD (1990) Cognitive and personality characteristics of worriers. Behav Res Ther 28:507–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Henker B, Whalen CK, O’Neil R (1995) Worldly and workday worries: contemporary concerns of children and young adolescents. J Abnorm Child Psychol 23:685–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Orton GL (1982) A comparative study of children’s worries. J Psychol 110:153–162. doi:10.1080/00223980.1982.9915336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Silverman WK, La Greca AM, Wasserstein S (1995) What do children worry about? Worries and their relation to anxiety. Child Dev 66:671–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kertz SJ, Bigda-Peyton JS, Rosmarin DH, Björgvinsson T (2012) The importance of worry across diagnostic presentations: prevalence, severity and associated symptoms in a partial hospital setting. J Anxiety Disord 26:126–133. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McEvoy PM, Watson H, Watkins ER, Nathan P (2013) The relationship between worry, rumination, and comorbidity: evidence for repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic construct. J Affect Disord 151:313–320. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chorpita BF, Tracey SA, Brown TA et al (1997) Assessment of worry in children and adolescents: an adaptation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther 35:569–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD (1990) Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther 28:487–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Esbjørn BH, Reinholdt-Dunne ML, Caspersen ID et al (2012) Penn State Worry Questionnaire: findings form normative and clinical samples in Denmark. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 35:113–122. doi:10.1007/s10862-012-9320-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gosselin P, Tremblay M, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R (2002) Les inquiétudes chez les adolescents: Propriétés psychométriques de la version français du Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children. [Adolescent worries: Psychometric properties in the French version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children.]. Can Psychol Psychol Can 43:270–277. doi:10.1037/h0086923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang S-G, Shin J-H, Song S-W (2010) Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in primary school children. J Korean Med Sci 25:1210–1216. doi:10.3346/jkms.2010.25.8.1210

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Muris P, Meesters C, Gobel M (2001) Reliability, validity, and normative data of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in 8-12-yr-old children. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 32:63–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pestle SL, Chorpita BF, Schiffman J (2008) Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire for children in a large clinical sample. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 37:465–471. doi:10.1080/15374410801955896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Conrad KJ, Wright BD, McKnight P et al (2004) Comparing traditional and Rasch analyses of the Mississippi PTSD Scale: revealing limitations of reverse-scored items. J Appl Meas 5:15–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodebaugh TL, Woods CM, Heimberg RG (2007) The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: the reverse-scored items of the social interaction anxiety scale do not belong. Behav Ther 38:192–206. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carlson M, Wilcox R, Chou C-P et al (2011) Psychometric properties of reverse-scored items on the CES-D in a sample of ethnically diverse older adults. Psychol Assess 23:558–562. doi:10.1037/a0022484

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sechrest L, Davis M, Stickle TR, McKnight P (2000) Understanding “method” variance. In: Bickman L (ed) Donald Campbell’s legacy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 63–87

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brown T (2006) CFA with equality constraints, multiple groups, and mean structures. In: Brown T (ed) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp 236–319

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 3:4–69. doi:10.1177/109442810031002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Horn JL, McArdle JJ (1992) A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exp Aging Res 18:117–144. doi:10.1080/03610739208253916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Millsap RE, Meredith W (2007) Factorial invariance: historical perspectives and new problems. In: Cudeck R, MacCallum RC (eds) 100 years of factor analysis. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 131–152

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gottlieb D, Bronstein P (1996) Parents’ perceptions of children’s worries in a changing world. J Genet Psychol 157:104–118. doi:10.1080/00221325.1996.9914849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasey MW (1993) Development and cognition in childhood anxiety: the example of worry. Adv Clin Child Psychol 15:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  27. World Health Organization (WHO) (1993) The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  28. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Association Task Force, Washington DC. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK (2013) International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition. Psicothema 25:151–157. doi:10.7334/psicothema2013.24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Birmaher B, Brent DA, Chiappetta L et al (1999) Psychometric properties of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): a replication study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 38:1230–1236. doi:10.1097/00004583-199910000-00011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Achenbach TM, Rescorla L (2001) Manual for ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington, VT

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rescorla L, Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY et al (2007) Epidemiological comparisons of problems and positive qualities reported by adolescents in 24 countries. J Consult Clin Psychol 75:351. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rescorla LA, Ginzburg S, Achenbach TM et al (2013) Cross-informant agreement between parent-reported and adolescent self-reported problems in 25 societies. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 42:262–273. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.717870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Finney SJ, DiStefano C (2006) Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Second Course 269–314

  35. Arbuckle JL (2006) Amos (Version 22.0) (Computer Program). SPSS, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bollen KA (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 17:303–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. DiStefano C, Motl RW (2006) Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 13:440–464. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Motl RW, DiStefano C (2002) Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 9:562–578. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van Sonderen E, Sanderman R, Coyne JC (2013) Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One 8:e68967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang W-C, Chen H-F, Jin K-Y (2015) Item response theory models for wording effects in mixed-format scales. Educ Psychol Measur 75:157–178. doi:10.1177/0013164414528209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Brown TA (2003) Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behav Res Ther 41:1411–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hazlett-Stevens H, Ullman JB, Craske MG (2004) Factor structure of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: examination of a method factor. Assessment 11:361–370. doi:10.1177/1073191104269872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Byrne BM (2013) Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9:233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lenhard W, Lenhard A (2014) Hypothesis tests for comparing correlations. Bibergau (Germany): Psychometrica. http://www.psychometrica.de/correlation.html

  46. Widaman KF, Ferrer E, Conger RD (2010) Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: measuring the same construct across time. Child Dev Perspect 4:10–18. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Carter MM, Sbrocco T, Miller O et al (2005) Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: differences between African–American and White-American college students. J Anxiety Disord 19:827–843. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Romanian Executive Unit for Financing Education, Higher Research, Development and Innovation (the “Effectiveness of an empirically based web platform for anxiety in youths”, Grant Number PN-II-PT-PCCA-2011-3.1-1500, 81/2012) awarded to Dr. Anca Dobrean.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anca Dobrean.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Păsărelu, C.R., Dobrean, A., Balazsi, R. et al. The Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children: Age, Gender and Clinical Invariance. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 48, 359–369 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0663-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0663-2

Keywords

Navigation