Review of Anxiety Scales for Children and Adults Essay

Abstract   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Psychology testing is very abstract form of testing.   It needs to be based on good research and solid evidence in order to be considered effective.   This review goes in depth to examine the use of this test and how valid it is at proving the existence and level of anxiety in children and adults.   There are many items and aspects of the test reviewed herein, including, the normative sample group, the construction of the test and the overall effectiveness of the test to come to a plausible conclusion and diagnosis.  Ã‚  Ã‚   This review should serve as a good guide in how to best use this test and what aspects may need to be revised in order to provide a more efficient and useful test. Test Name: Anxiety Scales for Children and Adults. Author: Battle, James Publication Date: 1993 Publisher Information: PRO-ED, Inc., 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78758-6897 Prices as of 1994: $84 per complete kit including examiner’s manual, 50 Forms Q, 50 Forms M, scoring acetate, and administration audiocassette $31 per examiner’s manual $19 per 50 Forms Q or 50 Forms M $6 per scoring acetate $14 per administration audiocassette. Online Availability:   This test is only available in written form or a tape recorded form. The test, ‘Anxiety Scales for Children and Adults’, is intended to show if a person has anxiety and, if so, at what level they have anxiety.   It seeks to show the presence and level of anxiety through a series of questions that relate to symptoms of anxiety.   The test is only arranged based upon age with one group for grade nine and under and the second group being grade 10 and above.   There is a different test form for each group.  Ã‚   However, the test does not separate out by gender or using any other factors except the two age groups.   The test could be described as being both unidimensional and multidimensional.   This is based upon the fact that the only differential is the basic age group. â€Å"No factor analyses, internal consistency coefficients, or empirical-criterion keying (item scores for anxious versus non-anxious persons or treatment effects studies) are reported. No controls for faking are indicated. Although developmental differences between elementary (second through sixth grades) and junior high (seventh through ninth grades) students were reported, no other age changes are indicated. Particularly important would be an examination of high school students versus adults and age changes through each elementary grade. A face/content examination indicates the majority of items relate to generalized anxiety and physiological symptoms, with some attention to setting and stimulus triggers. up. â€Å" (Oehler-Stinnett,2007)   There are no distinguishing points made for gender, race or even specific age, as mentioned in this quote from the Oehler-Stinnett review of the test.   As far as theoretical and empirical foundations, this test is very limited.   The test development was not sufficiently reported to allow for any hypothesis to be made.   Additionally, the lack of sub-scales and any rationale support for the procedure is a great default for deciding if the test has any clinical application. There is also a problem with the actual use of information in the test.   The questions are not properly defined as to what, if anything, makes them an anxiety trigger and worthy of being used to determine if a person suffers from anxiety.   Ã‚  It is only stated that they are symptoms commonly reported by people with anxiety.   As this analysis of the test reports, this leads to questions about the validity of the test:   Ã¢â‚¬Å"The specific sources of the item pools from which the author selected the items are unknown. It is merely stated the items represent symptoms typically reported by individuals experiencing anxiety. The final items that appear on the scales apparently have never been subjected to item analysis, internal consistency analysis, and factor analysis, all of which are standard scale construction procedures.† (Merenda,2007) The test manual does not caution nor imply that such limitations exist and the catalog actually reports erroneous information as to the size of the sample group.   The test is intended to be used for the diagnosis, treatment and research of anxiety.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The test is in two different formats.   The children’s, Form Q, and the adult’s, Form M are both designed to reach the same outcome, however, they are designed to be easy to complete for the different age groups.   Form Q is a simple yes or no choice test and has 25 questions.   Form M is a rating system test where individuals will choose from one to five, with one being always and five being never, and is comprised of 40 questions. There are no subscales to this test.   The only scale for the test was constructed without analysis of item, internal consistency and factor.   Each test has its own scale.   The scales are both pretty basic with the only outcome being if the individual has anxiety and if so, the intensity of the anxiety.   There is no allowance for faking or the possibility of conditions of a similar nature, such as depression.   The total testing time is ten to fifteen minutes.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The administration procedure is straightforward in nature with instructions for Form Q to be answered with a yes or no answer and Form M is to be based upon the 5 point scale given.   The tests are in written, paper and pencil format with the questions to be read by the individual taking the test.   There is an allowance for oral administration and other modifications, if necessary to assist the administration of the test.   The test can be given individually or in a group setting.  Ã‚   The test administrator is expected to have knowledge and familiarity with psychometrics and understand the standards of good test evaluation and use.    The manual specifically points out that the administrator should have knowledge of the American Psychological Association’s published standards of good test development and use from 1954.   There is no reference to special circumstance or any special considerations that should be made in the test administration.   There is the recommendation that the test interpretation should be conducted under the supervision and assistance of a psychologist or other professionally trained individual. The type of scoring for Form Q is based upon the amount of yes or no answers.   Form M scoring is based upon the rating given to each question.   The raw scores are totaled and used to determine the level of anxiety based upon a classification table that goes from very low to very high.     There are tables to help convert the percentile ranks and T-scores. The actual instructions for interpretation of the raw score, classification, percentile rank and T-score is very limited.   In fact, the conversion tables for each type of score are not in complete agreement with each other.   This insinuates that only one type of score should be used to score the test, not a combination of the different scoring options.   There is also a question as the reliability of the scoring system used for this test. â€Å"†¦ for the scale to be acceptable as a measure of treatment effects, all coefficients should be in the .90s. As noted, no internal consistency coefficients (alpha) were reported; therefore consistency of the scales in measuring the construct of anxiety cannot be examined. Standard error of measurement was also not reported in the reliability, scoring, or interpretation sections.† (Oehler-Stinnett,2007) The tables and scoring instructions are included in the manual. The technical evaluation of this test reveals numerous flaws.   The manual does not give a full explanation of the normative sample.   The description is rather simplified and gives the overview that the normative groups and reliability/validity groups overlap.   The data was collected in 1987 or 1988 and consisted of 247 adults for Form M, ages 15 to 63, and for Form Q it was based on 365 children of elementary school age and 433 children of junior high school age.   Both groups were from the Midwest. The children group was equal in the ratio of males to females.   The adult group had about twice the number of females as males.   There is no information given as to the demographics of the groups in terms of minorities and no representation of SES levels, clinical populations or the exact ages of participants.   There was distinction given for gender.   The limited information makes it difficult to fully evaluate the sample groups effectiveness in standardizing this test. The reliability of the test is based upon two testing, the original test and then a 2 week retest.  Ã‚  Ã‚   The retest rate was at .84 for elementary age, .86 for junior high age and .96 for adults, which are all acceptable rates.   The short retest period, however, does not allow for sufficient confirmation of a hypothesis and does not meet standards that are acceptable for the measuring of treatment effectiveness.   Additionally, there is not enough consistency in the scales to allow for an accurate measurement of anxiety levels between the original test and retest. The validity of the test, Form Q, is given based upon comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children and the Nervous Systems subtest of the California Test of Personality.  Ã‚   The scale, however, is compared to the North American Depression Inventory for Children and the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory.   Form M is compared to the Taylor Anxiety Scale for Adults and the Nervous Symptoms subscale of the California Test of Personality.   Constructs were as high or higher in correlation.   However, this is not discussed in detail in the manual.   The validity coefficients according to gender showed similar patterns. The T-tests showed no major difference in the scores of Form Q, according to gender. For M showed a higher score for females than males, but there must be consideration for the fact that there were twice as many females as males taking this test.   When looking at the mean, the difference was not major.   The lack of validity evidence can not be overlooked.   There are no studies that indicate the scale can accurately prove the difference between someone who is experiencing anxiety and someone who is not.   Additionally, there is a lack of supporting evidence for the use of this test in diagnosis and treatment of anxiety. A practical evaluation of this test shows no major indications of a problem.   The use of two separate forms for different age groups allows for the test to be easy to use and understand for each group.   Additionally, the availability of oral administration ensures those with limited reading abilities will be able to take the test and understand it.   The actual image of the test is rather plain and simple. It is presented in a straight forward, non-confusing manner. Form Q is presented in a yes or no format and Form M gives a scale that allows a rating from one to five with one clearly labeled as always and five as never.   There is nothing that stands out about the appearance of the test.   It is acceptable in terms that it is easy to use and understand for the participant. The straightforward nature of the test makes it easy to comprehend.   Form Q is a choice of two answers, which is well suited for the intended age group.   Form M gives a scale that allows for a more descriptive analysis of answers.   The test is intended to be taken by the participant reading and answering on their own, but the availability of oral administration allows for the test to be easy to take for all levels of comprehension.   The administration directions are quite clear and leave no room for question as to how it is to be done.   The test is to be given in a ten to fifteen minute time period.   It is manually administered, taken and scored.   Scoring is based upon the scales given in the manual.   It is advised that scoring be done under the supervision of a professional trained in psychology. This test has many weaknesses.   It is not fully backed by research and is not completely validated.   It lacks major aspects of an acceptable test, including the fact that scoring results are often inconsistent.   The scoring scales are not consistent with each other and there are no sub-tests to give an in depth look into the results.   Additionally, the lack of a reliable normative sample group is very concerning to a professional who is in need of a test that is reliable and valid.   The major strengths of the test is the actual make up of the test.   It is easy to understand and easy to score. This test would be best used for a general idea of a person state of anxiety.   It should be used in combination with other diagnostic measures and not as a sole source of diagnosis.   In order to make this test more effective and useful to a professional, it should be updated with more normative sample group tests, a better scoring system and more definition as to the age levels for each test.   Additionally, it would be helpful to include more differentiating information based upon specific age and race.   If updated, it should also be closely examined to fit into standards for tests of this nature. Reference Merenda, Peter F. (2004). Review of the anxiety scales for children and adults. University of Rhode Island. Oehler-Stinnett, Judy. (2004). Review of the anxiety scales for children and adults. Oklahoma State University. Wood, Richard J. and Zalaquett, Carlos P.(ED). (1998). Evaluating Stress: A book of resources, Volume I. Scarecrow Press.