Articles

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Examination of the 29(6) 503­–514

© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Psychometric Properties sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282910395894

of the Test Anxiety Scale http://jpa.sagepub.com

for Elementary Students

(TAS-E) Scores

Patricia A. Lowe1, Matthew J. Grumbein1,

and Jennifer M. Raad1

Abstract
The psychometric properties of the Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students (TAS-E)
scores were examined. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the
responses of 997 students in Grades 2 to 6 on the TAS-E. The results of the EFA produced a
four-factor solution: Physiological Hyperarousal, Social Concerns, Task Irrelevant Behavior, and
Worry. Gender differences were also found on each factor, except the Social Concerns factor.
In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the TAS-E scores with a
sample of 421 elementary students. The CFA results provided support for the four-factor
solution in Study 1. The results also indicated that the TAS-E scores had adequate internal
consistency reliability and test score stability. Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity
of the TAS-E scores was found.

Keywords
test anxiety, reliability, construct validity, gender differences, elementary students

Test anxiety is a serious and pervasive problem among elementary students (Bodas & Ollendick,
2005; Ergene, 2003). Approximately 20% of U.S. elementary students experience some test
anxiety (Goonan, 2003). Test-anxious students feel worried, tense, and apprehensive in testing
situations (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). These students do not perform well on tests (Bodas &
Ollendick, 2005) and experience higher levels of school dropout (Tobias, 1979) and psychopa-
thology (King, Mietz, Tinney, & Ollendick, 1995). The number of elementary students with test
anxiety is expected to continue to rise with more frequent testing and increased testing require-
ments (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) in U.S. schools (Wren & Benson, 2004).

1
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Corresponding Author:
Department of Psychology and Research in Education; 634 JRP Hall, 1122 West Campus Road;
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
Email: tlowe@ku.edu

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
504 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

Test Anxiety Measures

With the rise in test anxiety among elementary students, measures of test anxiety based on theory
and current research and designed specifically for elementary students are needed to identify
those students who experience high levels of test anxiety. Most measures of test anxiety have
been developed for the adult population (Anderson & Sauser, 1995), and it’s possible that the test
anxiety construct may not be the same for children and adults due to developmental differences
(Wren & Benson, 2004). Of the smaller number of instruments developed for children and in
current use, the majority are more than 20 years old (Lowe, Lee, & DeRuyck, 2004), and some
of these measures are not multidimensional in nature (Friedman & Bendas-Jacob, 1997; Zeidner,
1998). Researchers (e.g., Benson, 1998; Friedman & Bendas-Jacob, 1997; Zeidner, 1998) agree
that the test anxiety construct is complex, and current views indicate that this construct consists
of multiple dimensions and its complexity has been difficult to capture at the present time
(Zeidner, 1998). Furthermore, Seymour Sarason and colleagues (as cited in Hill, 1972) indicate
that test anxiety appears as early as Grade 2 and new multidimensional measures are needed to
identify those test-anxious children at this grade level. Yet to our knowledge, no new multidi-
mensional measure of test anxiety based on theory and current research used to assess students
in Grades 2 to 6 has been developed.

Past and Current Views of Test Anxiety

Different definitions of the test anxiety construct have evolved over time (Zeidner, 1998).
Sarason and Mandler (1952) stated that differences in student performance were due to two
different types of psychological drives, task-directed drives and learned anxiety drives. Test-
anxious students were reported to have strong anxiety drives and these drives lead to task-
irrelevant behaviors (e.g., avoidance behaviors) that impair test performance. Liebert and
Morris (1967) viewed test anxiety as consisting of a worry and emotionality component. The
worry component involves students’ concerns about their performance on tests and the emotion-
ality component (now called physiological hyperarousal; Joiner et al., 1999) is the autonomic
reactions students experience in test situations. According to Liebert and Morris (1967), test-
anxious students may have excessive concerns about failing tests along with physical symptoms
in test situations. Wine (1971) proposed a cognitive-attentional model to explain the debilitat-
ing effects of test anxiety. In this model, test-anxious students experience task irrelevant
thoughts that interfere with their ability to focus, resulting in lower test performance. Friedman
and Bendas-Jacob (1997) viewed test anxiety as consisting of three components: cognitive
obstruction, tenseness, and social derogation. Cognitive obstruction and tenseness are similar to
the task irrelevant thoughts in Wine’s (1971) cognitive-attentional model and emotionality in
Liebert and Morris’ (1967) test anxiety model, respectively. The social derogation component,
introduced by Friedman and Bendas-Jacob (1997), are the worries of social belittlement an
individual expects to receive from significant others following failure on exams. Wren and
Benson (2004) also conceptualized test anxiety as consisting of three components: autonomic
reactions, off-task behaviors, and thoughts. The autonomic reactions component is similar to
the emotionality component in Liebert and Morris’ (1967) model, whereas the off-task behav-
iors are the distracted behaviors individuals’ experience when they take tests. Nottelmann and
Hill (1977) indicated that certain off-task behaviors were characteristic of test-anxious students.
In contrast, the thoughts component consisted of worry cognitions and test-irrelevant thoughts
experienced in testing situations. Wren and Benson (2004) combined the worry cognitions and
test-irrelevant thoughts in their conceptualization of test anxiety because the authors believed

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
Lowe et al. 505

children, who were the focus of their study, were less able to differentiate between these two
areas in comparison to adults, who reported worry cognitions and test-irrelevant thoughts in
response to evaluative situations (Benson & El-Zahaar, 1994).

Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students

The Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students (TAS-E) is a new multidimensional measure of
test anxiety developed for children in Grades 2 to 6. The TAS-E consists of 30 items and includes
four test anxiety subscales (Physiological Hyperarousal, Social Concerns, Task Irrelevant Behav-
ior, and Worry) and a Total Test Anxiety scale. The TAS-E was developed based on earlier
models of test anxiety and current research in the field. The Physiological Hyperarousal subscale
(9 items) measures physical symptoms associated with test anxiety. The Worry subscale (7 items)
assesses worrisome thoughts associated with tests; a few cognitive interference items are on this
subscale, as children had difficulty differentiating between worry cognitions and task-irrelevant
thoughts (see Wren & Benson, 2004). The items on the Physiological Hyperarousal subscale and
the Worry subscale were developed based on the work of Liebert and Morris (1967). The Task
Irrelevant Behavior subscale (8 items) measures avoidant, fidgety, and restless behaviors associ-
ated with test anxiety. The items on the Task Irrelevant Behavior subscale were developed based
on the work of Nottelmann and Hill (1977), Sarason and Mandler (1952), and Wren and Benson
(2004). The Social Concerns subscale (6 items) assesses a student’s concerns about the percep-
tions of others if one does poorly on tests. The items on the Social Concerns subscale were based
on the work of Friedman and Bendas-Jacob (1997). Besides the four subscales, the TAS-E has a
Total Test Anxiety scale (30 items), a measure of overall debilitating test anxiety.

Gender Differences and Test Anxiety

Gender differences have been reported on measures of test anxiety, with females scoring signifi-
cantly higher than males at the total test anxiety level, not only in the United States, but countries
abroad (Hembree, 1988; Lowe & Lee, 2008; Zeidner, 1998). Zeidner examined 13 published
studies on gender differences among 8,154 elementary and secondary students from 12 different
countries, including the United States, using the original and adapted versions of the Test Anxi-
ety Inventory (Spielberger, 1980). Zeidner found significant gender group differences, with
females scoring significantly higher than males in all countries except China.
In Studies 1 and 2, the reliability and validity of the TAS-E scores were examined. In Study 1,
an EFA and reliability analyses were conducted to examine the internal structure of the measure.
In addition, gender differences were explored. Females were expected to score higher than males
on the Total Test Anxiety scale. In Study 2, evidence supporting the internal structure of the
TAS-E scores (i.e., results of a CFA and reliability analyses) and the TAS-E scores relations with
scores external to the test is presented.

Study 1
Method

Participants. Participants included 997 elementary students, 489 (49.0%) males and 508 (51.0%)
females, aged 7 to 13 (M = 9.76 years, SD = 1.38), in Grades 2 to 6 (M = 3.88, SD = 1.38). The
racial/ethnic composition of the sample consisted of 2.8% African American, 1.0% Asian American,
2.8% Hispanic, 13.2% Multi-racial, 3.3% Native American, and 76.8% White.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
506 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

The students were recruited from 13 schools from the midwestern region of the United States.
Principals were invited to participate in the study and those principals who agreed to have their
schools participate were sent student packets consisting of a parent letter explaining the study
and two copies of the parent consent form. Teachers distributed these packets to the students who
took them home for their parents to review. Only students who returned a signed parent consent
form were allowed to participate in the study. The return rate was 43.5%.
Instrument. The items developed for the TAS-E were based on the relevant test anxiety literature.
Seventy items were written based on the multiple dimensions (behavioral, cognitive interference,
physiological hyperarousal, social derogation, and worry) purported to reflect the test anxiety con-
struct. In addition, the work of Rafferty, Smith, and Ptacek (1997) guided the development of the
items, as these authors have suggested that different symptoms of test anxiety may appear before,
during, or after an exam. Once the items were developed, they were reviewed by two measurement
experts and three elementary school teachers, who examined the measure for its clarity, readability,
and congruity with the test anxiety construct. In addition, eight students, two from each grade level
(i.e., Grades 2 to 6), read through the items. After these reviews and feedback, some items were
rewritten for clarity and readability, including those items with words identified (i.e., marked) by
the children as difficult to read or understand, and 20 items were dropped for their redundancy. The
remaining 50 items were administered to the participants in the study. Responses were recorded on
a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always).
Procedure. The TAS-E was administered to students in large groups in school settings. The test
administrators obtained student assent and they followed standardized procedures in the admin-
istration of the measure. Each student was given a copy of the TAS-E. Then the test administra-
tors read the instructions aloud. Test administrators asked the students to read each item and circle
their best response.

Results
Sources of Validity Evidence

Evidence based on internal structure. An EFA was performed on the TAS-E scores. Principal
axis factoring with an oblique (promax) rotation procedure was performed on the scores of the
50 items of the TAS-E. Once the factors were extracted, they were rotated through the promax
procedure. Eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule, decrements in the scree plot, parallel analysis,
minimum average partial test, and the interpretability of different factor solutions served as the
criteria to determine the number of factors to extract. All of the extraction methods suggested
that four factors should be retained for the final solution, except the eigenvalues-greater-than-
one rule, which suggested ten factors should be retained. The goal of the study was to develop a
comprehensive measure of test anxiety and for each item to be weighted the most on one factor.
Stevens (1996) indicated that items should be weighted more (i.e., a factor coefficient greater
than .40) on the relevant factor and weighted less (i.e., a factor coefficient of less than .40) on the
other factors. Of the 50 items, 20 items were dropped because of low item-total correlations, low
coefficients on all factors, high coefficients on more than one factor, and interpretability of the
factors. The four-factor promax solution was chosen as the best solution for the TAS-E and is
presented in Table 1. Interfactor correlations ranged from .24 to .68.
Factor 1 of the TAS-E consists of 9 items and was named the Physiological Hyperarousal
factor. Item examples include My heart pounds when I take a test (Item 24) and My stomach
aches before I take a test (Item 30). Factor 2 includes 7 items and was named the Worry factor.
Examples of items include I worry that I will fail the test (Item 27) and I worry about my grade
after I take a test (Item 25). Factor 3 is comprised of 8 items and was named the Task Irrelevant

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
Lowe et al. 507

Table 1. Factor Pattern Coefficients for the Four-Factor Promax Solution for the Test Anxiety Scale
for Elementary Students (TAS-E)
Factor pattern coefficients
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
24   .79 .02 .07 .06
 9   .70 .07 .04 .06
30   .66 .02 .06 .02
 7   .65 .18 .02 .13
14   .64 .11 .08 .07
13   .58 .02 .01 .06
 4   .58 .02 .06 .01
19   .57 .04 .09 .03
 1   .57 .03 .04 .07
27   .09 .85 .07 .10
12   .06 .77 .01 .03
25   .05 .77 .05 .09
20   .07 .67 .05 .00
10   .07 .58 .06 .01
17   .15 .50 .04 .05
22   .17 .49 .05 .06
 8   .22 .03 .78 .01
28   .06 .09 .63 .08
18   .16 .00 .58 .00
11   .02 .04 .58 .00
16   .05 .10 .57 .02
26   .10 .10 .54 .01
 5   .11 .11 .51 .10
 2   .07 .18 .41 .07
15   .04 .00 .03 .84
21   .08 .01 .03 .84
23   .17 .09 .08 .61
 3   .08 .06 .07 .50
29   .05 .18 .02 .46
 6   .09 .10 .06 .43
Trace  3.94 3.37 2.79 2.52
Postrotation variance 31.22 26.70 22.11 19.97
Note: Highest coefficient is in bold font. Factor 1 = Physiological hyperarousal, Factor 2 = Worry, Factor 3 = Task
irrelevant behavior, and Factor 4 = Social concerns.

Behavior factor. Item examples on this factor include I play with my fingers when I take a test
(Item 28) and I move around in my seat when I take a test (Item 18). Factor 4 includes 6 items
and was named the Social Concerns factor. Examples of items on this factor include The other
students will not play with me if I do bad on a test (Item 23) and I worry that my friends will not
like me if I get a bad grade on a test (Item 29).
To determine the presence of a higher order factor, the Schmid-Leiman (1957) transformation
was performed. The results suggested the presence of a higher order factor, the Total Test Anxi-
ety factor. This factor accounted for 63.30% of the extracted variance.
Coefficient alphas were then computed for the TAS-E scores for the total sample and male
and female subsamples. For the total sample, coefficient alphas ranged from .78 to .92 (Physio-
logical Hyperarousal = .87, Social Concerns = .78, Task Irrelevant Behavior = .82, Worry = .87,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
508 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

Table 2. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Effect Sizes (d) for the Test Anxiety Scale for
Elementary Students (TAS-E) Scores and the Correlation Coefficients between the TAS-E Scores and
the Scores of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale-Second Edition (RCMAS-2) and the Test
Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC)
Male Female RCMAS-2 TASC
M SD M SD d 1 2 3 4 5 6
Physiological hyperarousal 15.64** 5.64 17.71**  6.24 .35 .54** .47** .56** .62** .00 .62**
Social concerns 8.39 2.84 8.24  2.65 .05 .31** .46** .37** .42** .00 .28**
Task irrelevant behavior 18.54** 5.79 20.43**  6.55 .31 .46** .44** .49** .54** –.14** .51**
Worry 16.52** 5.72 18.42**  6.09 .32 .49** .51** .66** .65** –.05 .68**
Total test anxiety 59.10** 15.88 64.80** 17.11 .35 .58** .58** .67** .70** –.07 .69**
Note. 1 = RCMAS-2 Physiological anxiety; 2 = RCMAS-2 Social anxiety; 3 = RCMAS-2 Worry; 4 = RCMAS-2 Total
anxiety; 5 = RCMAS-2 Defensiveness; 6 = TASC Total test anxiety.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

and Total Test Anxiety = .92). Coefficient alphas for males and females ranged from .78 to .91
(Physiological Hyperarousal = .86, Social Concerns = .78, Task Irrelevant Behavior = .80,
Worry = .85, and Total Test Anxiety = .91) and .78 to .92 (Physiological Hyperarousal = .87,
Social Concerns = .78, Task Irrelevant Behavior = .83, Worry = .89, and Total Test Anxiety = .92),
respectively. These reliability estimates appear adequate for general research purposes (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994).
Gender differences in mean scores. Independent t tests were performed to examine gender dif-
ferences on the TAS-E, with gender as the independent variable and the TAS-E scores as the
dependent variables in separate analyses. Hartley’s Fmax tests were performed first to test the
assumption of homogeneity of variance. None of the Fmax tests were statistically significant.
The independent t tests were then conducted and four of the five t tests were statistically signifi-
cant (see Table 2), indicating that females outscored males on the Physiological Hyperarousal,
Task Irrelevant Behavior, Worry, and Total Test Anxiety variables, but with small effect sizes.
No statistically significant gender difference was found on the Social Concerns variable.
In Study 2, the internal and external structure of the TAS-E scores was examined further using
an independent sample. The factor structure of the TAS-E scores was tested using CFA. In addi-
tion, we hypothesized that the TAS-E scores would have adequate internal consistency reliability
and test score stability and the TAS-E scores would correlate higher with scores measuring simi-
lar constructs or dimensions and would correlate lower with scores measuring different constructs
or dimensions.

Study 2
Method

Participants. Participants included 421 students, 217 (51.5%) males and 204 (48.5%) females,
aged 7 to 12 (M = 9.67 years, SD = 1.39), in Grades 2 to 6 (M = 4.10, SD = 1.28). The racial/
ethnic composition of the sample consisted of .7% African American, .5% Asian American,
1.4% Hispanic, 11.4% Multi-racial, 3.8% Native American, and 82.2% White. Students were
recruited from six schools in the midwestern region of the United States. The same recruitment
procedures used in Study 1 were followed in Study 2 and the return rate for signed parent consent
forms was 54.5%.
Instrument. The measures used in Study 2 included the TAS-E, the Test Anxiety Scale for
Children (TASC; Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite, & Ruebush, 1960), and the Revised

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
Lowe et al. 509

Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale - Second Edition (RCMAS-2; Reynolds & Richmond,
2008a). A description of the TAS-E is found in Study 1. A description of the RCMAS-2 and
the TASC follow.
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale-Second Edition (RCMAS-2). The RCMAS-2 is a self-
report measure of chronic, manifest anxiety for children aged 6 to 19. The RCMAS-2 has a Total
Anxiety scale, three anxiety subscales (Physiological Anxiety, Social Anxiety, and Worry), and
a Defensiveness scale. The Physiological Anxiety subscale assesses the physiological responses
that are associated with anxiety. The Social Anxiety subscale measures anxiety in social situa-
tions and a concern about the self in relation to others and the Worry subscale assesses obsessive
concerns, nervousness, and oversensitivity. The Defensiveness scale measures willingness to admit
common imperfections. Children respond to the RCMAS-2 statements using a yes/no format
(Reynolds & Richmond, 2008b).
Reynolds and Richmond (2008b) reported coefficient alphas of .75 to .92 and test score sta-
bility coefficients of .64 to .76 for the RCMAS-2 scores over a 1-week test-retest interval.
Evidence supporting the construct validity of the RCMAS-2 scores has been found (Reynolds &
Richmond, 2008b).
Test Anxiety Scale for Children. The TASC is a self-report measure of test anxiety for use with
elementary school children. The TASC includes items that mainly assess children’s worries
about tests. However, there are a few items that assess behavioral responses and somatic symp-
toms in relation to test anxiety. Children respond to the TASC statements using a true/false for-
mat (Sarason et al., 1960). Sarason and colleagues reported a coefficient alpha of .88 and a test
score stability coefficient of .75 over a 2-month test-retest interval for the TASC Total scores.
Evidence supporting the construct validity of the TASC scores has been reported (Ludlow &
Guida, 1991; Rhone, 1986).
Procedure. Participants completed a packet of measures in large groups during two testing
sessions in the schools. The measures were counterbalanced to prevent an order effect. Student
assent was obtained and standardized test administration procedures were followed in the
administration of the measure. Test administrators returned 1-to-5 weeks later for the second
testing session.

Results
Sources of Validity Evidence

Evidence based on internal structure. A CFA was performed on the TAS-E scores using Mplus
Version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). The four-factor model with a higher order factor
identified in Study 1 was compared to a one-factor model and a four-factor model. Model para­
meters were estimated using MLM, as analysis indicated the data violated the multivariate nor-
mality assumption. Examination of the modification indexes indicated two correlated measurement
errors between Items 9 and 24 and Items 6 and 21, with large modification index values (i.e., > 20).
Model respecification of correlated errors seemed to make statistical and substantive sense (see
Byrne, 1994 and Thompson, 2000, regarding when respecification of models is appropriate) in
this study because of the large modification index values noted for the two-error covariances and
the two error covariances represented correlated errors among items on the same subscales on the
same measure. Therefore, the three models were respecified with these two parameters freely
estimated. Fit indices (Satorra-Bentler rescaled χ2, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation,
RMSEA, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, SRMR, and the Comparative Fit Index,
CFI) were computed to evaluate the overall fit of the models. A RMSEA value of less than .06
and a SRMR value of less than .08 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI values of .90
and .93 represent an acceptable and a good fit, respectively (Byrne, 1994).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
510 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

Table 3. Fit Indices From the Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary
Students (TAS-E) Scores
Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR
1 factor (unmodified) 1,460.02* 405 .72 .08 .09
1 factor (modified) 1,308.10* 403 .76 .07 .08
4 factor (unmodified) 722.18* 399 .91 .04 .06
4 factor (modified) 677.40* 397 .92 .04 .06
4 factor with a higher order factor (unmodified) 723.49* 401 .91 .04 .06
4 factor with a higher order factor (modified) 677.47* 399 .93 .04 .06
Note. χ2 = Chi square; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation;
SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
*p < .0001.

Fit indices for the three unmodified and three modified models are shown in Table 3. Exami-
nation of the fit indices indicated that the modified four-factor model with a higher order factor
provided a good fit to the data. In comparing the fit indices for this model and the modified one-
factor model, the fit indices for the modified four-factor model with a higher order factor were
superior overall to the fit indices for the modified one-factor model. In contrast, the fit indices
were similar for the modified four-factor model with a higher order factor and the modified four-
factor model, indicating both models provide a reasonable fit to the data. However, the modified
four-factor model with a higher order factor is more parsimonious than the modified four-factor
model and it appears justifiable on theoretical grounds.
Coefficient alphas were computed for the TAS-E scores and ranged from .81 to .93 for the
first testing session and .84 to .94 for the second testing session. Coefficient alphas were also
calculated for the TASC Total scale scores (a = .93) and the RCMAS-2 scores (as = .80 to .86).
The internal consistency reliability estimates appear adequate for research purposes (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
Test score stability coefficients and the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calcu-
lated for the TAS-E scores. Test score stability coefficients were examined over a 1- to 5-week
test-retest interval (M = 16.67 days, SD = 9.73). For the TAS-E scores, the test score stability
coefficients ranged from .83 to .91 (Physiological Hyperarousal = .85, Social Concerns = .85,
Task Irrelevant Behavior = .83, Worry = .85, and Total Test Anxiety = .91), suggesting adequate
reliability for research purposes (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) over a range of 1 to 5 weeks. The
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were also computed for the TAS-E scores (Physiologi-
cal Hyperarousal = .87, Social Concerns = .80, Task Irrelevant Behavior = .81, Worry = .86, and
Total Test Anxiety = .91) and were similar in value to the test score stability coefficients.
Evidence based on external relations. Correlation coefficients were computed between the TAS-E
scores and scores of measures external to the test (see Table 2).
Convergent validity. Moderate to strong validity coefficients of .69 and .70 were found between
the TAS-E Total Test Anxiety scale scores and the scores of the TASC Total scale and the
RCMAS-2 Total Anxiety scale, respectively. Small to moderate correlation coefficients of .28 to
.68 were reported between the TAS-E subscale scores and the scores of the TASC Total scale,
with the highest correlation noted between the TAS-E Worry subscale scores and the TASC
Total scale scores. Small to moderate validity coefficients of .31 to .66 were found between the
TAS-E subscale scores and the scores of the RCMAS-2 anxiety subscales. Two of the three sub-
scale scores (Social Concerns and Worry) of the TAS-E correlated highest with the scores of the
TASC Total scale, RCMAS-2 Total Anxiety scale, and a similar dimension on the RCMAS-2.
The TAS-E Physiological Hyperarousal scores correlated highest not only with the RCMAS-2

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
Lowe et al. 511

Total Anxiety and Physiological Anxiety scores but also with the RCMAS-2 Worry scores.
Overall, these findings support the convergent validity of the TAS-E scores.
Discriminate validity. Negligible correlation coefficients of .00 to –.14 were found between the
TAS-E scores and the RCMAS-2 Defensiveness scores. These findings provide support the dis-
criminant validity of the TAS-E scores.

Discussion
The findings from the two studies indicate that the TAS-E scores have adequate internal consis-
tency reliability and test score stability, over a range of 1 to 5 weeks. Also, small to strong cor-
relations were found between the TAS-E scores and scores of measures (i.e., the TASC and
RCMAS-2) assessing similar constructs, supporting the convergent validity of the TAS-E scores.
According to Spielberger and Vagg (1995), test anxiety is a situation-specific form of trait anxi-
ety. Therefore, the TAS-E scores should correlate with the RCMAS-2 anxiety scores, as the
RCMAS-2 anxiety scores are a measure of chronic, manifest (i.e., trait) anxiety (Reynolds &
Richmond, 2008b). As noted, a moderate validity coefficient was reported between the TAS-E
Physiological Hyperarousal scores and the RCMAS-2 Worry scores. There is some evidence in
the test anxiety literature to suggest that the effects of emotionality vary with levels of worry
(Deffenbacher, 1997) and this may account for the modest relationship reported between the
scores of these two variables in the present study. Negligible validity correlations were reported
between the TAS-E scores and scores of a dissimilar construct (i.e., the RCMAS-2 Defensive-
ness scale), supporting the discriminant validity of the TAS-E scores. Overall, these findings
provide evidence for the construct validity of the TAS-E scores.
Gender differences were also found on the TAS-E, with females scoring higher than males on
the TAS-E Total Anxiety scale and three (Physiological Hyperarousal, Worry, and Task-Irrelevant
Behavior) of the four-test anxiety subscales. These results are similar to the findings reported in
the literature, with females endorsing higher levels of test anxiety than males (Hembree, 1988;
Lowe & Lee, 2008; Zeidner, 1998). Hembree (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 143 studies
that included 34,340 students in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools. Hembree
reported significantly higher scores for females than males on test anxiety measures at each
school level. Mean effect sizes ranged from a low of .14 for 1st and 2nd graders to a high of .43
for 5th through 10th graders. In contrast, nonsignificant gender differences were found on the
TAS-E Social Concerns subscale. This finding is similar to the result of a nonsignificant gender
difference reported in a sample of college students on the Social Concerns/Stress subscale of the
Adult Manifest Anxiety Scale-College Version (AMAS-C; Reynolds, Richmond, & Lowe,
2003), a measure of trait anxiety (Lowe & Reynolds, 2005). Cole and Cole (1993) and Santrock
(1998) indicate that students are influenced by significant others (e.g., peers) and what these
individuals may think about them. Perhaps, boys and girls may be equally concerned about the
perceptions of significant others in relation to their performance on tests, especially when their
test performance is poor, thus resulting in nonsignificant gender differences on this scale.
With further research, the TAS-E may prove to be an effective measure to identify test-
anxious students in elementary schools. Early identification of test-anxious students would make
it possible to intervene earlier. Moreover, elevations on specific dimensions of the TAS-E may
guide intervention efforts of mental health professionals in their work with test-anxious students.
Elevated scores on specific dimensions of the TAS-E may assist professionals in the selection of
appropriate and effective interventions to reduce test anxiety and its negative effects for indi-
vidual students, thus providing a direct link between assessment results and interventions. How-
ever, additional research with the TAS-E is needed to explore the potential benefits of this
new measure.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
512 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

There are several limitations associated with the current studies. Samples of convenience
were used in Studies 1 and 2. The use of samples of convenience may introduce possible external
validity threats. Overall, minority students were underrepresented in the current studies and the
geographic region where these students were recruited was limited. Replication of the present
studies with a larger proportion of students from diverse backgrounds and from different regions
of the United States would lend support to the current findings. Another limitation in the present
study was the exclusive use of self-report. Self-reports are subject to response bias either deliber-
ate or unconscious on the part of students, resulting in error variance (Merrell, 2008). Multiple
informants (such as students, parents, and teachers) and multiple methods (such as self-report,
behavior rating scales, clinical interviews, behavior observations, and physiological assessments)
should be used in future studies to more accurately assess students’ test anxiety levels and to
reduce error variance.
The current studies represent an important step in assessing the reliability and validity of the
TAS-E scores and the measure’s potential use with elementary students. Based on the findings
of the present study, the TAS-E appears to be a promising new multidimensional measure of test
anxiety developed for elementary students in Grades 2 to 6 and worthy of future investigation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Anderson, S. B., & Sauser, W. J. (1995). Measurement of test anxiety: An overview. In C. D. Spielberger
& P. R. Vaag (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 15-33). Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis.
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educa-
tional Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10-22.
Benson, J., & El-Zahaar, N. (1994). Further refinement and validation of the Revised Test Anxiety Scale.
Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 203-221.
Bodas, J., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). Test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 8, 65-88.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring instru-
ment: A paradigmatic application on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
26, 583-605.
Cole, M., & Cole, S. (1993). The development of children (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scientific American Books.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1977). Relationship of worry and emotionality to performance on the Miller Analogies
Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 191-195.
Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. School Psychology
International, 24, 313-328.
Friedman, I. A., & Bendas-Jacob, O. (1997). Measuring perceived test anxiety in adolescents: A self-report
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 1035-1045.
Goonan, B. (2003). Overcoming test anxiety: Giving students the chance to show what they know. East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED480053)
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research,
58, 47-77.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
Lowe et al. 513

Hill, K. (1972). Anxiety in the evaluative context. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.), The young child (Vol. 2, pp. 225-263).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structural analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Joiner, T. E., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., Schmidt, N. B., Rudd, M. D., & Catanzaro, S. J. (1999). Physiologi-
cal hyperarousal: Construct validity of a central aspect of the tripartite model of depression and anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 290-298.
King, N. J., Mietz, A., Tinney, L., & Ollendick, T. H. (1995). Psychopathology and cognition in adolescents
experiencing severe test anxiety. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 49-54.
Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction
and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
Lowe, P. A., & Lee, S. W. (2008). Factor structure of the Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Ado-
lescents (TAICA) scores across gender among students in elementary and secondary school settings.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 231-246.
Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., & DeRuyck, K. A. (2004). An exploratory factor analysis of a new comprehen-
sive measure of test anxiety: The Test Anxiety for Children and Adolescents (TAICA). Unpublished
manuscript.
Lowe, P. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (2005). Factor structure of the AMAS-C scores across gender among stu-
dents in collegiate settings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 687-708.
Ludlow, L. H., & Guida, F. V. (1991). The Test Anxiety Scale for Children as a generalized measure of
academic anxiety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 1013-1021.
Merrell, K. W. (2008). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus (Version 6). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nottelmann, E. D., & Hill, K.T. (1997). Test anxiety and off-task behavior in evaluative situations. Child
Development, 48, 225-231.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rafferty, B. D., Smith, R. E., & Ptacek, J. T. (1997). Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational
anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 892-906.
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (2008a). The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Los Angeles,
CA: Western Psychological Services.
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (2008b). The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Reynolds, C. R., Richmond, B. O., & Lowe, P. A. (2003). The Adult Manifest Anxiety Scale. Los Angeles,
CA: Western Psychological Services.
Rhone, L. M. (1986). Measurement of test anxiety among selected Black adolescents: Appropriateness of
four anxiety scales. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 313-324.
Santrock, J. W. (1998). Adolescence (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite, R. R., & Ruebush, B. K. (1960). Anxiety in elemen-
tary school children. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sarason, S. B., & Mandler, G. (1952). Some correlates of test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 47, 810-814.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22,
53-61.
Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists 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.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015
514 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29(6)

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.),
Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 261-284). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
573-582.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104.
Wren, D. G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and internal con-
struct validation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 17, 227-240.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 21, 2015