Abstract
In this study, the psychometric properties of three commonly used rating scales of test anxiety were examined, including the test anxiety inventory (TAI), the test anxiety scale (TAS) and the Friedman-Bendas Test Anxiety Scale (FAT). Under the framework of item response theory (IRT), the Bifactor multi-dimensional item response model was employed to compare the psychometric properties of the three scales. Results showed that the Bifactor structures were suitable for the three scales, which were then used in the subsequent Bifactor multidimensional item response theory analysis. Although the three commonly used TA scales were likely to measure the same underlying construct—test anxiety, they had very different psychometric properties. The findings of the Bifactor Multi-IRT provided suggestions for determining which scale to use in a given study design: the TAI and the FAT evaluated information at greatly overlapping ranges; however, the TAI, performing a litter better at the same levels of severity of TA, may be a good choice when we recruit those with various levels of TA severity to ensure a high precision. What’s more, FAT may be a good choice for measuring those with moderate TA severity. Meanwhile, the TAS provided more information at the lower level of TA symptomatology, which was to say, TAS was more suitable for epidemiological TA studies and for measuring those with lower TA severity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-19, 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16.
Ballatori, E., Roila, F., Ruggeri, B., Bruno, A. A., Tiberti, S., & Orio, F. D. (2010). Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_5907.
Benson, J., & Tippets, E. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of the test anxiety inventory. Cross-culture Anxiety Research, 4, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825724-12.
Bi, Z. Z. (2002). Investigation and study on examination anxiety of high school students in Chongqing. Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 27(4), 596–599.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314(7), 572–572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.
Bodas, J., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). Test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-2342-x.
Cai, L., Yang, J. S., & Hansen, M. (2011). Generalized full-information item Bifactor analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023350.
Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of Bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5.
Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the Bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x.
Dave, P., Nathaniel, P. E., Natasha, S., & Stephen, P. K. (2013). Identification and validation of a brief test anxiety screening tool. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1(4), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.826152.
Devellis R. F. (2005). Classical test theory. Applied Rasch Measurement: A Book of Exemplars. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3076-2.
Dimitra, F., Despina, M., & Georgia, P. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Greek version of the test anxiety inventory. Psychology, 2(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.23038.
Dong, Y. Y., Zhou, R. L., Gao, X., Jiao, F., & Guo, W. (2011). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of test anxiety inventory (TAI) short form in college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25(11), 872–876.
Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multi-dimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168300700207.
Efklides, A., Papadaki, M., Papantoniou, G., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1997). Effects of cognitive ability and affect on school mathematics performance and feelings of difficulty. The American Journal of Psy-chology, 110, 225–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423716.
Efklides, A., Papadaki, M., Papantoniou, G., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1999). Individual differences in school mathematics performance and feelings of difficulty: The effects of cognitive ability, affect, age, and gender. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173111.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Maheah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Embretson S.E., & Reise S. P. (2013). Item Response Theory: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952651.n143.
Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International, 24, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343030243004.
Everson, H. T., Millsap, R. E., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1991a). Isolating gender differences in test anxiety: A confirmatory factor analysis of the test anxiety inventory. Educational and Psychological Meas urement, 51, 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511024.
Everson, H. T., Millsap, R. E., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1991b). Isolating gender differences in test anxiety: A confirmatory factor analysis of the test anxiety inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511024.
Fereshteh B., Alsadat S. M., Razieh E., & Shermin, R. (2012). Validation and standardization of persian version of friedben test anxiety scale (FAT). Psychology Studies, 1(29).
Friedman, I. A., & Bendas-Jacob, O. (1997). Measuring perceived test anxiety in adolescents: A self-report scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006012.
Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the Bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006.
Gomez, R., & McLaren, S. (2015). The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: Support for a Bifactor model with a dominant general factor and a specific factor for positive affect. Assessment, 22, 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114545357.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058001047.
Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The Bifactor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287965.
Hong, E. (1998). Differential stability of individual differences in state and trait test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80142-3.
Hubley A. M. (2014). Divergent Validity. Springer Netherlands.
Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2007). Evidence-based assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091419.
Li, Y., & Rupp, A. A. (2011). Performance of the S-X statistic for fullinformation Bifactor models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 986–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410392031.
Lori, T. R., & Richard A.R. (1998). Test anxiety and study behavior of community college students in relation to ethnicity, gender, and age. Age Differences, 21.
Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., Witteborg, K. M., Prichard, K. W., Luhr, M. E., Cullinan, C. M., Mildren, B. A., Raad, J. M., Cornelius, R. A., & Janik, M. (2008). The test anxiety inventory for children and adolescents (TAICA): Examination of the psychometric properties of a new multi-dimensional measure of test anxiety among elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907303760.
Lowe, P. A., Ang, R. P., & Loke, S. W. (2011a). Psychometric analyses of the test anxiety scale for elementary students (TAS-E) scores among Singapore primary school students. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(4), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9250-9.
Lowe, P. A., Ang, R. P., & Loke, S. W. (2011b). Psychometric analyses of the test anxiety scale for elementary students (TAS-E) scores among Singapore primary school students. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(4), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9250-9.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.
Manavipour, D., Mohammadi, A., & Shahabi, P. (2013). Test anxiety inventory in Iranian culture. Social Science Electronic Publishing.
Mandler, G., & Sarason, S. B. (1952). A study of anxiety and learning. JournaI of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062855.
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short form of the state scale of the Spielberger state—Trait anxiety inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x.
Metallidou, P., & Vlachou, A. (2007). Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and achievement in language and mathematics in elementary school children. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590500411179.
Morgan, G. B., Hodge, K. J., Wells, K. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research? : A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 2–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3010002.
Morris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1969). The effects of anxiety on timed and untimed intelligence tests: Another look. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027164.
Mowbray, T., Jacobs, K., & Boyle, C. (2015). Validity of the German test anxiety inventory (TAI-G) in an Australian sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12058.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1992.tb01436.x.
Newman, E. (1996). No more test anxiety. Los Angels: Learning Skills Publications.
Olino, T. M., Yu, L., Klein, D. N., Rohde, P., Seeley, J. R., Pilkonis, P. A., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (2012). Measuring depression using item response theory: An examination of three measures of depressive symptomatology. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1348.
Osman, A., Wong, J. L., Bagge, C. L., Freedenthal, S., Gutierrez, P. M., & Lozano, G. (2012). The depression anxiety stress scales—21 (DASS-21): Further examination of dimensions, scale reliability, and correlates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 1322–1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21908.
Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Factorial validity. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3704.
Raju, P. M., Mesfin, M., & Alia, E. (2010). Test anxiety scale: reliability among Ethiopian students. Psychological Reports, 107(3), 939–948. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.11.17.PR0.107.6.939-948.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of Bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 17, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02290599.
Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In Stress and Anxiety, 193–216.
Sebastián, E. P., Daniel, E. H., & Luis, A. F. (2012). Psychometric properties of the revised Spanish version of the German test anxiety inventory (GTAI-AR) in Argentinean university students. Universitas Psychologica, 11(1), 177–186.
Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2015). Further evidence for the deficit account of the test anxiety–test performance relationship from a high-stakes admission testing setting. Intelligence, 53, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.007.
Song, W. Z., & Zhang, Y. (1987). The relationship between examination anxiety and personality traits of Chinese undergraduates. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 1(4), 165–168.
Song, F., & Zhang, X. J. (2008). The application of test anxiety scale (TAS) in middle school students in Beijing. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(6), 623–624.
Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test anxiety inventory: Preliminary professional manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press.
Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Spielberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, E. P., Taylor, C. J., Anton, W. D., Algaze, B., Ross, G. R., & Westberry, L. G. (1979). Preliminary manual for the test anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. J., Anton, E. D., Algaze, B., Ross, G. R., & Westberry, L. G. (1980). Manual for the test anxiety inventory (“test attitude inventory”). Redwood City: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sub, A., & Prabha, C. (2003). Academic performance in relation to perfectionism, test procrastination and test anxiety of high school children. Psychological Studies, 48, 7–81.
Szafranski, D. D., Barrera, T. L., & Norton, P. J. (2012). Test anxiety inventory: 30 years later. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 25(6), 667–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.663490.
Taylor, J., & Deane, F. P. (2002). Development of a short form of the test anxiety inventory (TAI). The Journal of General Psychology, 129(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209603133.
Umegaki, Y., & Todo, N. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Japanese CESD, SDS, and PHQ-9 depression scales in university students. Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000351.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231.
Vilagut, G. (2014). Test-retest reliability. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5.
Wang, C. K. (2001). Test report of examination anxiety scale among university students. Journal of Mental Health in China, 15(2), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2001.02.011.
Yazici, K. (2017). The relationship between learning style, test anxiety and academic achievement. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050108.
Ye, B. J., & Wen, Z. L. (2012). Estimating homogeneity coefficient and its confidence interval. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44, 1687–1694. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.01687.
Zeidner, M. (1991). Test anxiety and aptitude test performance in an actual college admissions testing situation: Temporal considerations. Personality & Individual Differences, 12, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90092-P.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of art. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0984.
Zhu, Z. J., Wang, N., Zhou, H. B., Lv, S. B., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Mediating role of psychological elasticity in relationship between parent-child communication and examination anxiety of senior 3 students. Journal of North China University of Technology(Medical Sciences), 21(04), 317–320.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432.
Funding
All of the authors agree with the submission to Current Psychology. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31960186,31760288,31660278).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
The index of test quality criteria
Index | Criteria | Meaning or Function |
|---|---|---|
Reliability | Test-retest reliability | Test-retest reliability is the degree to which test scores remain unchanged when measuring a stable individual characteristic on different occasions (Vilagut 2014). |
Split-half coefficient | Refers to the correlation of the scores of all the subjects on the two halves after dividing one test into two equal parts. | |
Cronbach’s alpha | Alpha is an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test (Bland and Altman 1997). | |
Validity | Convergent validity | The degree to which the instrument correlates with other measures with which it should correlate (Ballatori et al. 2010). |
Divergent validity | Divergent validity is a term to describe evidence that measures of constructs that theoretically should not be highly related to each other are, in fact, not found to be highly correlated to each other. (Hubley 2014). | |
Factorial validity | Factorial validity examines the extent to which the underlying putative structure of a scale is recoverable in a set of test scores. (Piedmont 2014). | |
Norm | – | Norm is more of a reference system for evaluating the position of the test score in the team, that is, the index used to evaluate the test score. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, F., Cai, Y. & Tu, D. Psychometric properties of TAS, TAI, FAT test anxiety scales 6 in Chinese university students: a Bifactor IRT study. Curr Psychol 41, 2250–2263 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00610-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00610-w