The Validity and Reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for Children and Adolescents.

IF 3.4 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Assessment Pub Date : 2025-04-15 DOI:10.1177/10731911251327480

Alana Jones, Esther Gandhi, Maddison O'Gradey-Lee, Deanna Francis, Serje Robidoux, Genevieve McArthur, Jennifer L Hudson

{"title":"The Validity and Reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for Children and Adolescents.","authors":"Alana Jones, Esther Gandhi, Maddison O'Gradey-Lee, Deanna Francis, Serje Robidoux, Genevieve McArthur, Jennifer L Hudson","doi":"10.1177/10731911251327480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251327480"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251327480","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.

查看原文本刊更多论文

儿童青少年阅读焦虑测验（RAT）的效度与信度。

目前缺乏具有已知心理测量特性的可公开获得的标准化和规范化阅读焦虑测试（rat）。在本研究中，我们收集了小学生（n = 498）和中学生（n = 473）的自我报告数据（n = 416）、家长报告数据（n = 455），或两者均收集（n = 184），并使用了修订儿童焦虑与抑郁量表-25 （RCADS-25）和优势与困难问卷（SDQ）。分析发现，每个RAT的21个条目分别加载了广义阅读焦虑、社交阅读焦虑和生理阅读焦虑三个因子，具有良好的内部一致性（p < 0.05）。85 - 0.98)和互信度(。82 - 0.90)。此外，RAT评分与RCADS-25焦虑评分的相关性更密切(r = 0.54；趋同效度)高于RCADS-25抑郁评分、SDQ亲社会行为、行为问题和同伴问题评分（rs = -）。03 ~ - 0.41；区分效度)。因此，我们计算了每个RAT的规范，这些规范可以在motif.org.au上免费获得。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

2.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.