Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition Scores Among Chinese Secondary School Students

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition (RCMAS-2) into Mandarin and to examine its psychometric properties among Chinese adolescents. The participants included 436 Chinese students in Grades 7 to 12 who were administered the Chinese version of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS-2-C). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed to examine the factor structure of the RCMAS-2-C. Results indicated a modified four-factor model (Worry and Social Anxiety factors combined, Physiological Anxiety, Defensiveness I, and Defensiveness II factors) provided an adequate model fit to the data. Categorical omegas were computed and ranged from .68 to .90 for the RCMAS-2 scale scores. Convergent evidence of validity for the RCMAS-2-C anxiety scores was also found. Implications of the findings of the study for clinicians and researchers are discussed.

Keywords

RCMAS-2 anxiety reliability validity Chinese adolescents

Early researchers conceptualized manifest anxiety as a measure of drive or motivation (Spence & Spence, 1966). Janet Taylor (1951) (Spence) theorized that individuals with high levels of manifest anxiety would have higher levels of drive and would exhibit higher levels of conditioning. Taylor conducted a conditioned eyelid response study with 77 participants and found support for her theory that the constructs of anxiety and drive are related to each other. Drive theorists believe individuals with high levels of anxiety experience heightened autonomic responses to stressful or aversive stimuli (Zeidner, 1998). Moreover, these individuals experience more self-deprecatory thoughts and task-irrelevant behaviors than individuals with low levels of anxiety and drive (Zeidner, 1998).

Anxiety is viewed as a universal construct and affects people of all ages (Bodas & Ollendick, 2005). Researchers have estimated the prevalence rates of anxiety symptoms range from 3% to 25% among children and adolescents (Albano, Chorpita, & Barlow, 2003). Among this population, excessive anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, such as mental health problems, relationship difficulties, poor academic performance (Edelmann, 1992), and physical illnesses (Bhattacharya, Shen, & Sambamoorthi, 2014).

Anxiety and China

During the past decade of economic development and social transformations in China, researchers have devoted more attention to mental health issues, such as anxiety (Xin, Zhang, & Liu, 2010). In these research studies, the prevalence rates of anxiety symptoms among Chinese children and youth were found to be comparable with their Western counterparts (Chen, Yu, Li, & Zhang, 2015) and similar negative outcomes have been reported (Xin et al., 2010). However, culture-specific factors associated with anxiety have also been reported among Asian populations. One cultural difference between Asian and Western societies is the collectivism (where interdependent relationships are valued) versus individualism (where autonomy and independence are valued) distinction. Researchers have argued that people from collectivist societies are more concerned with maintaining their relationship with others, and therefore, may be more sensitive to social norms and expectations (Triandis, 2001). Based on this argument, Hofmann, Asnaani, and Hinton (2010) contended that people with a collectivism orientation may experience social anxiety in a wider range of situations due to greater concerns for violating social norms. Similarly, Ang and Huan (2006) found that expectations from parents and teachers were a main source of academic stress for Asians, because in a collectivism society, failure to meet parent and teacher expectations may lead to feelings of shame for the whole family (e.g., filial piety), resulting in withdraw of family support. Therefore, the collectivism orientation in Chinese society may cause Chinese individuals to experience anxiety somewhat differently from their Western counterparts, especially when social situations are involved.

Currently, most measures used to assess anxiety in Chinese mental health studies were developed decades ago (e.g., the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983; the Self-rating Anxiety Scale, Zung, 1971). With the need for more research studies in China to address mental health issues, there comes the need to develop or adapt more recently developed or updated measures of anxiety for use with Chinese youth.

The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition (RCMAS-2) and Its Predecessors

The RCMAS-2 (Reynolds & Richmond, 2008a) is the newest measure of manifest anxiety and comes from a long line of popular and well-researched instruments. Beginning in 1951, Janet Taylor (i.e., J. T. Spence) was the first individual to develop a measure of manifest anxiety. Taylor named the measure, Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS). Taylor selected items for her measure from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) based on her belief that the items selected would be helpful in identifying those adults with anxiety (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978). The original MAS consisted of one anxiety scale (Taylor, 1951).

Castaneda, McCandless, and Palermo (1956) created a downward extension of the MAS, essentially using the same items but rewording the items and making them more age-appropriate for use with children and named the measure the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS). The CMAS consisted of an anxiety scale and a scale assessing respondents’ denial of common imperfections (Finch, Montgomery, & Deardorff, 1974). Later, Finch, Kendall, and Montgomery (1974) conducted a principal components analysis of the responses of 245 children to the CMAS and found support for a five-factor structure, three anxiety factors (Worry/Oversensitivity, Physiological Anxiety, and Concentration) and two lie factors.

Reynolds and Richmond revised the CMAS in 1978 and renamed the instrument, the RCMAS. Reynolds and Richmond revised the CMAS for a number of reasons, including the need to improve its psychometrics, to make the items less difficult for young children and children with disabilities to read, to broaden the item content, and to assess children and adolescents in Grades 1 to 12. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the responses of 329 school-age students in Grades 1 to 12 on the RCMAS. Results of the EFA yielded a five-factor structure, three anxiety factors (Physiological Anxiety, Worry/Oversensitivity, and Social Concerns/Concentration) and two lie factors. The two lie factors were combined for scoring purposes.

The RCMAS, a 36-item measure and one of the gold standards used in the assessment of anxiety in children and adolescents, was revised in 2008 (Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b). The RCMAS-2 has an updated standardization sample, revised items to cover broader content areas, and improved psychometric properties compared with the previous version of the measure (Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b). The RCMAS-2 has 49 items. The measure consists of a Total Anxiety scale that measures the overall level of anxiety, three subscales that measure Physiological Anxiety (the physiological responses that often accompany anxiety), Worry (obsessive concerns or worrisome thoughts) and Social Anxiety (anxiety in social and performance situations), and a Defensiveness scale that measures individuals’ willingness to admit to common everyday imperfections. Examples of the items found on the RCMAS-2 are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Example Items on the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition.

Item	Scale
1. Often I feel sick in my stomach.	Physiological Anxiety
7. I wake up scaled sometimes.	Physiological Anxiety
6. I worry that others do not like me.	Worry
8. I get nervous around people.	Worry
10. I fear other people will laugh at me.	Social Anxiety
37. I am afraid to speak up in a group.	Social Anxiety
19. I am always kind.	Defensiveness
29. I am always good.	Defensiveness

Note. RCMAS-2 = Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition. WPS = Western Psychological Services. Sample items the RCMAS-2 copyright © 2008 by Western Psychological Services. Reprinted by P. Lowe, University of Kansas, for scholarly display purposes by permission of the publisher, WPS. Not to be reprinted in whole or in part for any additional purpose without the expressed, written permission of the publisher (rights@wpspublish.com). All rights reserved.

The authors of the RCMAS-2 conducted an EFA on the responses of 3,086 U.S. children and adolescents, aged 6 to 19, and found support for a five-factor (Physiological Anxiety, Worry, Social Anxiety and Defensiveness I and II factor) structure. The authors combined the two Defensiveness factors into one scale for scoring purposes (Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b). Ang, Lowe, and Yusof (2011) performed a series of EFAs on the RCMAS-2 among 1,618 Asian students, aged 10 to 15, and also found support for the same five-factor structure among Singapore students. Later, Lowe (2014a) performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on the RCMAS-2 scores using a sample of 1,003 U.S. students, aged 7 to 19. Lowe found that both the five-factor model and a three-factor model (one anxiety factor with the Worry, Social Anxiety, and Physiological Anxiety factors combined, and two defensiveness factors) provided an adequate fit to the data, with the five-factor model providing a better model fit. Although the five-factor model of the RCMAS-2 was supported in these studies, some items on the RCMAS-2 were found to cross load on multiple factors. Reynolds and Richmond (2008b) stated that several new items added to the RCMAS-2 Worry scale also tapped into the Social Anxiety dimension (e.g., worrying about not being liked by other people), and therefore tended to load on both factors. Ang and colleagues also reported that several items on the Worry and Social Anxiety scales loaded across factors. In line with this, Raad (2013) conducted an EFA on the RCMAS-2 among 178 students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), and found a four-factor structure with the Worry and Social Anxiety items loading on one factor instead of two along with the Physiological Anxiety factor and the two Defensiveness factors.

Several researchers have adapted the RCMAS-2 or the RCMAS-2 Short Form (i.e., the first 10 items on the measure) into Mandarin to use with Chinese students (To, 2011; Wu, Liu, Chen, Tseng, & Lin, 2016). Wu and colleagues (2016) administered the Mandarin version of the RCMAS-2 to 370 Taiwanese pediatric cancer patients, aged 6 to 19. The authors found some evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the different scale scores, with the exception that the internal consistency reliability estimate for the Physiological Anxiety scale scores was relatively low (α = .65). The authors also conducted a CFA on the anxiety-related items (excluding the Defensiveness scale), and found that the hypothesized three-factor anxiety structure (Physiological Anxiety, Worry, and Social Anxiety) did not fit the data well (CFI = .71). To (2011) translated the RCMAS-2 Short Form into Mandarin and used it as a measure of psychological well-being in her study. However, the psychometric properties of the translated RCMAS-2 Short Form were not examined. Thus, limited research has been conducted with Chinese students using Mandarin on the RCMAS-2, and no research has been conducted on the full-length RCMAS-2 form with nonclinical samples of Chinese students who speak Mandarin.

Relationships With Other Measures

The RCMAS-2 is a measure of general (manifest) anxiety and is derived from a theory of trait anxiety (Reynolds, 1985). Test anxiety is a situation-specific form of trait anxiety (Spielberger, Anton, & Bedell, 1976) evoked in testing situations. Therefore, the scores of measures of general (manifest) and test anxiety should positively correlate with each other. Hembree (1988) reviewed 57 studies including 7,271 participants in Grades 1 to 12, and reported a mean correlation of .56 between scores of general (manifest) anxiety and test anxiety measures.

The purpose of the present study was to translate the RCMAS-2 into Mandarin Chinese and to examine its psychometric properties in a sample of nonclinical Chinese adolescents. The authors hypothesized that (a) a five-factor model for the RCMAS-2-C would provide the best fit to the data compared with a three-factor model and a four-factor model, (b) the RCMAS-2-C scale scores would demonstrate adequate reliability, and (c) the RCMAS-2-C anxiety scores would correlate positively with scores of a test anxiety measure.

Method

Participants

Participants included 480 students (253 males, 226 females, 1 not reporting), aged 12 to 19 M = 15.92, SD = 1.60), in Grades 7 to 12 recruited from one junior high and high school combined in Central China. The only reported ethnicity was Han, with 25 students (5.2%) not indicating their ethnicity.

Instrument

The RCMAS-2

The RCMAS-2 is a self-report measure designed to assess general (manifest) anxiety in children and adolescents, aged 6 to 19. The RCMAS-2 consists of three anxiety scales: Physiological Anxiety (12 items), Worry (16 items), and Social Anxiety (12 items). In addition, the RCMAS-2 has a Defensiveness scale (nine items) and an Inconsistent Responding index, derived from the response patterns on nine pairs of similar items that clinicians can use to validate an individual’s responses. Raters respond to the RCMAS-2 items on dichotomous scale, using a yes/no format.

The Test Anxiety Measure for Adolescents

The Test Anxiety Measure for Adolescents (TAMA; Lowe, 2014b) is a 44-item multidimensional measure of test anxiety designed for U.S. adolescents in Grades 6 to 12. It consists of five scales (Cognitive Interference, Physiological Hyperarousal, Social Concerns, Task Irrelevant Behaviors, and Worry). Individuals respond to the TAMA items on a 4-point scale, with 1 (never) and 4 (almost always). Reliability and validity evidence has been reported for the TAMA scores (Lowe, 2014b, 2015).

Procedures

Test adaptation

Four bilingual Chinese doctoral students holding a master’s degree from a U.S. university in education or psychology completed the forward translation of the items and instructions on the RCMAS-2 and TAMA. The final draft was agreed upon by all four translators and then sent to two bilingual native English speakers who had no knowledge of the RCMAS-2 or the TAMA for independent backward translation. The backward translators consisted of two individuals, both of whom have at least a bachelor’s degree in Chinese. The forward translators then compared the backward translations with the original measures, and inconsistencies informed modifications on the forward translation. This process was repeated until the forward translators determined that the backward translation was similar to the original measures. The forward and backward translations of the RCMAS-2 were then sent to the Western Psychological Services (WPS), the test publishing company for the RCMAS-2, for an independent panel review. The backward translation of the TAMA was sent to the author of the measure to be reviewed. Further modifications were made to the forward translation of the two measures until approved by WPS and the TAMA author.

Test administration

The RCMAS-2-C and TAMA-C were printed on two sides of the same questionnaire. On half of the questionnaires, the RCMAS-2-C was printed on the front page, and on the other half, the TAMA-C was on the front page. Each measure was printed with its instruction. At the top of the questionnaire, an explanation of the study was printed and students were informed that their participation was voluntary. Those willing to participate were then instructed to fill out the demographic information and read the instructions before completing the measures. All students completed the measures in paper-and-pencil format in their classrooms.

Data Analysis

The original RCMAS-2 was designed with two validity indices: a Defensiveness scale and an Inconsistent Responding index. Because the validity of quantitative data collected in large samples is sometimes questioned, the validity scores were used to filter out potentially careless responders. The Defensiveness scores were not used because they might affect the results of factor analysis (i.e., the Defensiveness items make up their own factors). Thus, the Inconsistent Responding index scores were used to filter out potentially careless responders. According to the RCMAS-2 manual (Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b), an Inconsistent Responding index score of six indicates an 81% likelihood of careless responding. Therefore, cases with an Inconsistent Responding index score of six or higher were deleted from the data for further analysis. Using this approach, responses from 44 students (26 males, 18 females), aged 13 to 19 (M = 15.73, SD = 1.56) were deleted. The final sample consisted of 436 students (227 males, 208 females, 1 not reporting), aged 12 to 19 (M = 15.94, SD = 1.61), in Grades 7 to 12.

Results

CFAs

Three CFAs were performed on the responses of Chinese adolescents to the RCMAS-2-C to determine whether a three-factor (one Anxiety factor and two Defensiveness factors), a four-factor (a combined Worry and Social Anxiety factor, one Physiological Anxiety factor, and two Defensiveness factors), or a five-factor (Worry, Social Anxiety, Physiological Anxiety, and two Defensiveness factors) model fit the data best. Mplus, Version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) was used to conduct the CFAs. The robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) parameter estimator was used because of the categorical nature of the indicators (Brown, 2006). No response or multiple responses on a single item were coded as missing in the present study. Missing values were dispersed randomly across the 49 items on the RCMAS-2-C, and they were less than 5% of the total sample. According to Schafer (1999), missing data less than 5% of the total sample are considered inconsequential and results should be unbiased. Therefore, the pairwise present approach was used in the analyses. Guidelines for a good model fit were a comparative fit index (CFI) and a Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) value close to .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value < .06 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Guidelines for an adequate model fit were a CFI and a TLI value above .90 (Bentler, 1990) and a RMSEA value ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The results of the CFA indicated that the three models did not provide adequate fit to the data. However, a review of the modification indices revealed correlated errors between several pairs of items. Specifically, results suggested that the correlated errors between Items 4 and 10, Items 7 and 39, Items 23 and 37, Items 23 and 41, and Items 37 and 41 should be freely estimated. Further inspection of the content of the items revealed that the pairs of items were worded similar to each other. Items 4 and 10 assess concerns about being laughed at. Items 7 and 39 measures fears during sleep. Items 23, 37, and 41 assess fears of speaking in front of others.

Based on these results, three additional CFAs were conducted with five correlated errors. The results indicated that a modified four-factor model or a modified five-factor model both provided adequate fit to the data (Table 2). Because the modified four-factor model can be conceptualized as nested within the modified five-factor model where the correlation between the Worry and Social Anxiety factors were fixed to one and their correlation with the other factors were fixed to be the same, a chi-square difference test, ΔWLSMVχ², was conducted and found not to be statistically significant, ΔWLSMVχ²(4) = 6.11, p = .19, indicating the two modified models fitted equally well. In addition, an inspection of the standardized factor coefficients revealed a high correlation (.95) between the Worry and Social Anxiety factors in the modified five-factor model, indicating these two factors may not be distinct from each other (Mulaik, 2009). Therefore, the modified four-factor model was selected as the best model for the RCMAS-2-C because it appeared more parsimonious, did not have any high interfactor correlations, and had previous research support. The modified four-factor model, its standardized coefficients, and its interfactor standardized coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 2.

Summary of the Fit Indices for the Different Factor Models for the RCMAS-2-C Scores.

Model	WLSMVχ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Three-factor model (unmodified)	1,892.529**	1,124	.864	.858	.040
Three-factor model (modified)	1,674.029**	1,119	.902	.897	.034
Four-factor model (unmodified)	1,831.636**	1,121	.874	.868	.038
Four-factor model (modified)	1,626.593**	1,116	.910	.905	.032
Five-factor model (unmodified)	1,804.754**	1,117	.879	.872	.038
Five-factor model (modified)	1,623.021**	1,112	.910	.905	.032

Note. RCMAS-2-C = Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition, Chinese Version; WLSMVχ² = robust weighted least squares chi square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

p < .001.

Table 3.

Standardized Factor Coefficients for the Modified Four-Factor Model for the RCMAS-2-C.

Item No.	Physiological anxiety	Worry/social anxiety	Defensiveness I	Defensiveness II
34	0.73
1	0.58
15	0.57
43	0.57
11	0.54
20	0.52
5	0.50
25	0.45
39	0.44
31	0.38
7	0.36
46	0.25
10		0.74
16		0.72
3		0.71
26		0.68
6		0.68
32		0.68
22		0.63
4		0.62
35		0.61
21		0.60
36		0.60
17		0.60
2		0.59
18		0.59
13		0.58
30		0.58
49		0.56
42		0.55
12		0.53
9		0.53
27		0.53
41		0.51
8		0.48
45		0.47
47		0.39
28		0.37
23		0.34
37		0.29
19			0.79
29			0.77
33			0.75
24			0.69
38			0.61
14			0.51
44				0.77
48				0.77
40				0.46
Physiological anxiety	__
Worry/social anxiety	0.76	__
Defensiveness 1	−0.30	−0.23	__
Defensiveness II	−0.52	−0.52	0.38	__

Note. RCMAS-2-C = Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition, Chinese Version.

Reliability

Reliability coefficients of the RCMAS-2-C scale scores were estimated using a nonlinear structural equation modeling (SEM) method derived by Green and Yang (2009). Kelley and Pornprasertmanit (2016) termed this reliability coefficient categorical omega. We computed categorical omega for the RCMAS-2-C scores in R (version 3.3.2, R Development Core Team, 2016). Categorical omega values for the different RCMAS-2-C scale scores were .68 (Physiological Anxiety factor), .72 (Defensiveness factor), and .90 (Worry/Social factor).

Convergent Evidence of Validity

Pearson correlations between the RCMAS-2-C anxiety scale scores and the TAMA-C scores were computed to assess convergent evidence of validity of the RCMAS-2-C scores. Correlation estimates among these scores ranged from .26 to .60 (see Table 4), indicating moderate resemblance among the constructs measured by each scale. A closer examination indicated that the TAMA-C Physiological Hyperarousal scores (measuring somatic symptoms accompanying test anxiety) correlated most strongly with the RCMAS-2-C Physiological Anxiety scores. The TAMA-C Worry (measuring worries in testing situations) and Social Concerns scores (measuring one’s concerns about other people’s opinions if he or she does not do well on a test) correlated most strongly with the RCMAS-2-C Worry/Social Anxiety scores. Overall, convergent evidence of validity for the RCMAS-2-C anxiety scores were supported. In addition, correlation estimates between the RCMAS-2-C Defensiveness scores and the TAMA-C scores ranged from −.09 to −.20, indicating these scales measured highly different constructs.

Table 4.

Correlation Coefficients Between the Scores on the RCMAS-2-C and the Scores on the TAMA-C Scales.

TAMA-C scales	RCMAS-2-C scales
TAMA-C scales	Physiological anxiety	Worry/social anxiety	Defensiveness
Task Irrelevant Behavior	.43**	.26**	−.11*
Physiological Hyperarousal	.52**	.44**	−.09
Cognitive Interference	.47**	.40**	−.17**
Worry	.38**	.53**	−.20**
Social Concerns	.34**	.60	−.09

Note. RCMAS-2-C = Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition, Chinese Version; TAMA-C = Test Anxiety Measure for Adolescent Scale, Chinese Version.

p < .05. **p < .001.

Discussion

In the present study, a modified four-factor model (Worry/Social Anxiety, Physiological Anxiety, and two Defensiveness factors) was selected as the best model for the RCMAS-2-C. This finding is in agreement with Raad’s (2013) EFA study with a sample of U.S. students with SLD on the RCMAS-2. Using categorical omega, reliability estimates were found to be adequate for the Worry/Social Anxiety and the Defensiveness scale scores on the RCMAS-2-C and moderate for the Physiological Anxiety scale scores. Furthermore, convergent evidence of validity for the RCMAS-2-C scores was supported with small to moderate correlations between the RCMAS-2-C anxiety scores and the TAMA-C scores.

The Worry and Social Anxiety items loaded on one factor on the RCMAS-2-C in the present study instead of two as found in previous studies (Ang et al., 2011; Lowe, 2014a; Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b). However, similarities between the items on these two scales were also noted on the English version of the RCMAS-2 (Raad, 2013; Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b). Furthermore, researchers have found people from collectivist cultures (such as Asian cultures) are more sensitive to social norms, and therefore, may experience social anxiety in a wider range of situations (Hofmann et al., 2010; Triandis, 2001). Therefore, it is possible that the Chinese adolescents in the present study may have responded to the items on the Worry (particularly items that ask about worrisome thoughts concerning social situations) and Social Anxiety scales more similarly than their American counterparts.

On the RCMAS-2-C, the categorical omega value for the Physiological Anxiety scores was moderate. Previous studies with Asian samples also reported moderate Cronbach’s alpha for this scale’s scores (Ang et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2016). Researchers have found that people from different cultures sometimes report different physical symptoms that accompanying the same mental health problems (Waza, Graham, Zyzanski, & Inoue, 1999). Therefore, it is possible that Chinese adolescents may experience different physiological symptoms of anxiety compared with their U.S. counterparts. As for now, the RCMAS-2-C Physiological Anxiety scores should be interpreted with caution.

Several limitations are associated with the present study. First, the present study used a sample of convenience. Students were recruited from one school in the middle region of China. Therefore, they may not be representative of all Chinese adolescents. Second, the RCMAS-2 was designed for students aged 6 to 19. However, the present study validated the RCMAS-2-C only among junior high and high school students. The psychometric properties of the measure among younger students have yet to be investigated. Furthermore, the reliability estimate for the Physiological Anxiety scale score was moderate. Although this estimate was comparable with statistics reported in other Asian samples, it is unclear whether it was the test adaptation process that led to the measures performing differently across cultures, or there are differences in the manifestation of anxiety symptoms across U.S. and Chinese cultures.

Future research directions include investigating the psychometric properties of the RCMAS-2-C among younger students, aged 6 to 12 and students in other regions of China. Special attention should be paid to comparing the alternative four-factor model with the five-factor model. Moreover, because manifestations of anxiety could differ across gender and age ranges (Christensen et al., 1999; Lewinsohn, Gotlib, Lewinsohn, Seeley, & Allen, 1998), it would be important to test measurement invariance on the RCMAS-2-C across these different groups of Chinese students. Furthermore, a study should be conducted in the future with bilingual Chinese adolescent students either in China or the United States who would respond to both the English and Chinese versions of the RCMAS-2 to determine whether measurement invariance is tenable across the Chinese and English versions of the measure.

In sum, the present study supported a modified four-factor structure on the RCMAS-2-C. Reliability estimates were adequate for the RCMAS-2-C scores, with the exception of a moderate categorical omega value for the Physiological Anxiety scores, indicating this scale should be interpreted with caution. Convergent evidence for the validity of the RCMAS-2 scores was supported. Based on these findings, the RCMAS-2-C is a potentially promising measure of anxiety for Chinese adolescents. Elevated anxiety scale scores on the RCMAS-2-C indicate a higher risk for specific types of anxiety symptoms (e.g., physiological anxiety, social/worry anxiety). Elevated scores inform educators and clinicians in planning anxiety interventions for students who are at-risk. Compared with the anxiety measures currently used in Chinese studies, the RCMAS-2-C has items that seem to more closely represent current Chinese students’ daily life experiences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albano

A. M.

Chorpita

B. F.

Barlow

D. H.

(2003). Childhood anxiety disorders. In Mash

E. J.

Barkley

R. A.

(Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 279-329). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ang

R. P.

Huan

V. S.

(2006). Academic Expectations Stress Inventory: Development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 522-539. doi:10.1177/0013164405282461

Ang

R. P.

Lowe

P. A.

Yusof

(2011). An examination of the RCMAS-2 scores across gender, ethnic background, and age in a large Asian school sample. Psychological Assessment, 23, 899-910. doi:10.1037/a0023891

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bhattacharya

Shen

Sambamoorthi

(2014). Excess risk of chronic physical conditions associated with depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 1-10. doi:10.1186/1471-244x-14-10

Bodas

Ollendick

T. H.

(2005). Test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 65-88. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2342-x

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Castaneda

McCandless

Palermo

(1956). The children’s form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Child Development, 27, 317-326.

10.

Chen

Zhang

(2015). Genetic and environmental contributions to anxiety among Chinese children and adolescents—A multi-informant twin study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 586-594. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12310

11.

Christensen

Jorm

A. F.

Mackinnon

A. J.

Korten

A. E.

Jacomb

P. A.

Henderson

A. S.

Rodgers

(1999). Age differences in depression and anxiety symptoms: A structural equation modeling analysis of data from a general population sample. Psychological Medicine, 29, 325-339. doi:10.1017/s0033291798008150

12.

Edelmann

R. J.

(1992). Anxiety: Theory, research and intervention in clinical and health psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

13.

Finch

A. J.

Kendall

P. C.

Montgomery

L. E.

(1974). Multidimensionality of anxiety in children: Factor structure of Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2, 331-336.

14.

Finch

A. J.

Jr. Montgomery

L. E.

Deardorff

P. A.

(1974). Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: Reliability with emotionally disturbed children. Psychological Reports, 34, 658.

15.

Green

S. B.

Yang

(2009). Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 155-167. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9099-3

16.

Hathaway

S. R.

McKinley

J. C.

(1943). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

17.

Hembree

(1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.

18.

Hofmann

S. G.

Asnaani

Hinton

D. E.

(2010). Cultural aspects in social anxiety and social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 1117-1127. doi:10.1002/da.20759

19.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

20.

Kelley

Pornprasertmanit

(2016). Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychological Methods, 21, 69-92. doi:10.1037/a0040086

21.

Lewinsohn

P. M.

Gotlib

I. H.

Lewinsohn

Seeley

J. R.

Allen

N. B.

(1998). Gender differences in anxiety disorders and anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 109-117. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.107.1.109

22.

Lowe

P. A.

(2014a). A closer look at the psychometric properties of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale–Second Edition among U.S. elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 495-508. doi:10.1177/0734282914528611

23.

Lowe

P. A.

(2014b). The Test Anxiety Measure for Adolescents (TAMA): Examination of the reliability and validity of the scores of a new multidimensional measure of test anxiety for middle and high school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 404-416. doi:10.1177/0734282913520595

24.

Lowe

P. A.

(2015). Should test anxiety be measured differently for males and females? Examination of measurement bias across gender on measures of test anxiety for middle and high school, and college students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 238-246. doi:10.1177/0734282914549428

25.

Mulaik

S. A.

(2009). Foundations of factor analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

26.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

27.

Raad

(2013). Validation of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2) scores for children with specific learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://guides.lib.ku.edu/etd

28.

R Development Core Team. (2016). R (Version 3.3.2). Available from https://www.r-project.org/

29.

Reynolds

C. R.

Richmond

B. O.

(1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of children’s manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271-280. doi:10.1007/BF00919131

30.

Reynolds

C. R.

(1985). Multitrait validation of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale for children of high intelligence. Psychological Reports, 56, 402. doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.56.2.402

31.

Reynolds

C. R.

Richmond

B. O.

(2008a). The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale-Second Edition (RCMAS-2). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Service.

32.

Reynolds

C. R.

Richmond

B. O.

(2008b). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2): Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

33.

Schafer

J. L.

(1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3-15.

34.

Spence

J. T.

Spence

K. W.

(1966). The motivational component of manifest anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In Spielberger

C. D.

(Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 291-326). New York, NY: Academic Press.

35.

Spielberger

C. D.

Anton

W. D.

Bedell

(1976). The nature and treatment of test anxiety. In Zuckerman

Spielberger

C. D.

(Eds.), Emotions and anxiety: New concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 317-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Spielberger

C. D.

Gorsuch

R. L.

Lushene

Vagg

P. R.

Jacobs

G. A.

(1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

37.

Taylor

J. A.

(1951). The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 81-92. doi:10.1037/h0059488

38.

K. L. S.

(2011). The role of democratic family and school environment in urban and rural Chinese adolescents’ attitudes about children’s rights and their psychological well-being (Master’s thesis). University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/30109/1/To_KimLunSharon_201111_MA_thesis.pdf

39.

Triandis

H. C.

(2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907-924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169

40.

Waza

Graham

A. V.

Zyzanski

S. J.

Inoue

(1999). Comparison of symptoms in Japanese and American depressed primary care patients. Family Practice, 16, 528-533. doi:10.1093/fampra/16.5.528

41.

L. M.

Liu

Chen

H. M.

Tseng

H. C.

Lin

W. T.

(2016). Psychometric properties of the RCMAS-2 in pediatric cancer patients. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 20, 36-41. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2015.07.008.

42.

Xin

Zhang

Liu

(2010). Birth cohort changes of Chinese adolescents’ anxiety: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1992-2005. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 208-212. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.010

43.

Zeidner

(1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum.

44.

Zung

W. W.

(1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics, 12, 371-379. doi:10.1016/s0033-3182(71)71479-0