The State–Trait Inventory of Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) is a commonly administered self-report instrument of state–trait cognitive and somatic anxiety. Extant research has consistently supported the intended oblique two-factor scoring structure for the STICSA. However, this model assumes that population-level data have (or approximate) a simple structure and that item-level variance is unidimensional. These assumptions may not be tenable and have unintended consequences for STICSA subscore interpretation. Consequently, we tested these assumptions by fitting confirmatory and exploratory structural equation models to STICSA scores for a diverse sample of college students enrolled at a large Southwestern university in the United States (n = 635). Results indicated that cognitive and somatic factors are not equally robust and that STICSA items appear to measure a nonnegligible mixture of both latent cognitive and somatic anxiety. It is recommended that future research use exploratory structural equation model in tandem with CFA to directly model data complexity.
BalsamoM.InnamoratiM.Van DamN. T.CarlucciL.SagginoA. (2015). Measuring anxiety in the elderly: Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory of Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) in an elderly Italian sample. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(6), 999-1008. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610214002634
3.
BalyanK. Y.TokS.TatarA.BinbogaE.BalyanM. (2016). The relationship among personality, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, physiological arousal, and performance in male athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 10(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2015-0013
4.
BeauducelA.HerzbergP. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
5.
BeckA. T.SteerR. A. (1990). Manual for the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Psychological Corporation.
BentlerP. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software.
8.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
9.
BentlerP. M.SatorraA. (2010). Testing model nesting and equivalence. Psychological Methods, 15(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019625
10.
BonifayW. E.ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.MeijerR. R. (2015). When are multidimensional data unidimensional enough for structural equation modeling? An evaluation of the DETECT multidimensionality index. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(4), 504-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.938596
CalvoM. G.AveroP.CastilloM. D.Miguel-TobalJ. J. (2003). Multidimensional anxiety and content-specificity effects in preferential processing of threat. European Psychologist, 8(4), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.8.4.252
13.
CarlucciL.WatkinsM. W.SergiM. R.CataldiF.SagginoA.BalsamoM. (2018). Dimensions of anxiety, age, and gender: Assessing dimensionality and measurement invariance of the State-Trait for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) in an Italian sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02345
14.
ChapmanL. K.WilliamsS. R.MastB. T.Woodruff-BordenJ. (2009). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Beck Anxiety Inventory in African American and European American young adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(3), 387-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.12.003
15.
ChenF.CurranP. J.BollenK. A.KirbyJ.PaxtonP. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462-494. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0049124108314720
16.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
17.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
18.
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 316-336. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.100.3.316
19.
ConnS. R.RiekeM. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Champaign.
20.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources.
21.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
22.
DeacyA. D.GayesL. A.De LurgioS.WallaceD. P. (2016). Adaptation of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety for use in children: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 41(9), 1033-1043. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsw030
23.
ElwoodL. S.Wolitzky-TaylorK.OlatunjiB. O. (2012). Measurement of anxious traits: A contemporary review and synthesis. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 25(2), 647-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.582949
GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 572-580. https://doi.org/10.1086/208993
26.
GignacG. E.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(5), 639-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.804398
27.
GreeneA. L.EatonN. R.LiK.ForbesM. K.KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E.WaldmanI. D.CiceroD. C.ConwayC. C.DochertyA. R.FriedE. I.IvanovaM. Y.JonasK. G.LatzmanR. D.PatrickC. J.ReininghausU.TackettJ. L.WrightA. G. C.KotovR. (2019). Are fit indices used to test psychopathology structure biased? A simulation study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(7), 740-764. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000434
28.
GrösD. F.AntonyM. M.SimmsL. J.McCabeR. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.369
29.
GrösD. F.MilanakM. E.HershenbergR. (2013). Convergence of depression and anxiety symptoms in friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(10), 1061-1074. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.10.1061
30.
GrösD. F.SimmsL. J.AntonyM. M. (2010). Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) in friendship dyads. Behavior Therapy, 41(3), 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.07.001
31.
GruczaR. A.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468568
32.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195-216). Scientific Software International.
33.
HanelP. H. P.VioneK. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?PLOS ONE, 11(12), Article e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354
34.
HerrmannA.PfisterH.-R. (2013). Simple measures and complex structures: Is it worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 599-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.004
HoodT. C.BackK. W. (1971). Self-disclosure and the volunteer: A source of bias in laboratory experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030380
37.
HowardJ. L.GagnéM.MorinA. J. S.ForestJ. (2018). Using bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling to test for a continuum structure of motivation. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2638-2664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316645653
38.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
39.
KingeryJ. N.GinsburgG. S.BursteinM. (2009). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children in an African American adolescent sample. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(2), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0126-0
40.
LambertS. F.CooleyM. R.CampbellK. D. M.BenoitM. Z.StansburyR. (2004). Assessing anxiety sensitivity in inner-city African American children: Psychometric properties of the Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(2), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_5
41.
LancasterS. L.MelkaS. E.KleinK. P.RodriguezB. F. (2015). Ethnicity and anxiety: A psychometric evaluation of the STICSA. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175615578757
42.
LewisA. (1970). The ambiguous word “anxiety.”International Journal of Psychiatry, 9, 62-79.
43.
MansolfM.ReiseS. P. (2016). Exploratory bifactor analysis: The Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(5), 698-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1215898
44.
MarchJ. S.ParkerJ. D. A.SullivanK.StallingsP.ConnersC. K. (1997). The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(4), 554-565. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199704000-00019
45.
MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2004). An empirical comparison of information-theoretic selection criteria for multivariate behavior genetic models. Behavior Genetics, 34(6), 593-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-004-5587-0
46.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
47.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 439-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
48.
MartynP.BrymerE. (2014). The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(7), 1436-1445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105314555169
49.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
MelkaS. E.LancasterS. L.AdamsL. J.HowarthE. A.RodriguezB. F. (2010). Social anxiety across ethnicity: A confirmatory factor analysis of the FNE and SAD. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(7), 680-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.011
51.
MistlerB. J.ReetzD. R.KrylowiczB.BarrV. (2012). The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors annual survey. Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.
52.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23(1), 116-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
53.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41(5), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
54.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2017). Mplus.Version 8.3 [Computer software].
55.
NealA. M.TurnerS. M. (1991). Anxiety disorders research with African Americans: Current status. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.400
56.
PetersonR. A.MerunkaD. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010
57.
PetterssonE.TurkheimerE.HornE. E.MenattiA. R. (2012). The general factor of personality and evaluation. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.839
58.
PittM. A.MyungI. J.ZhangS. (2002). Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review, 109(3), 472-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.472
59.
PreacherK. J. (2006). Quantifying parsimony in structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(3), 227-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4103_1
60.
ReeM. J.FrenchD.MacLeodC.LockeV. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36(3), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465808004232
61.
ReeM. J.MacLeodC.FrenchD.LockeV. (2000). The State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety: Development and validation. Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy.
62.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
63.
RobertsK. E.HartT. A.EastwoodJ. D. (2016). Factor structure and validity of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety. Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000155
64.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
65.
SaxL. J.GilmartinS. K.BryantA. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870
66.
SchmittT. A.SassD. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410387348
67.
SijtsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), Article 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
68.
SilvermanW. K.FleisigW.RabianB.PetersonR. A. (1991). Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20(2), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2002_7
SpielbergerC. D. (1985). Anxiety, cognition, and affect: A state-trait perspective. In Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 171-182). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728215-11
71.
SteigerJ. H.LindJ. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Psychometric Society.
72.
SteigerJ. H.SchönemannP. H. (1978). A history of factor indeterminacy. In Theory construction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences (pp. 136-178). Jossey-Bass.
73.
ten BergeJ. M. F.SočanG. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858
TomsicM. L.HendelD. D.MatrossR. P. (2000). A World Wide Web response to student satisfaction surveys: Comparisons using paper and internet formats (ED445633). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED445633.pdf
76.
Van DamN. T.GrösD. F.EarleywineM.AntonyM. M. (2013). Establishing a trait anxiety threshold that signals likelihood of anxiety disorders. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.631525
77.
WatkinsM. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113-1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364
78.
WatsonD.FriendR. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027806
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
