Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
Psychometric Analysis of the Dating Anxiety Scale for Adolescents in Samples of Polish and U.S. Young Adults: Examining the Factor Structure,Measurement Invariance,Item Functioning,and Convergent Validity
This study explored whether the Dating Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (DAS-A), which was originally developed in the United States to assess dating anxiety in adolescents, is appropriate for use in samples of young adults from Poland and the United States. The factor structure, measurement invariance across country, gender and relationship status, degree of precision across latent levels of the DAS and the functioning of individual items, and convergent validity were examined in a sample of 309 Polish and 405 U.S. young adults. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the original three-factor measurement model of the DAS. Invariance tests revealed factor loadings and item thresholds that differed across subgroups, supporting partial metric and partial scalar invariance. The MIRT analysis showed that all items adequately discriminated participants with low and high anxiety. Dating anxiety latent factor correlations with mental health and interpersonal competence were significant in the expected negative directions. The results call for careful interpretation of research involving the DAS in cultural, gender, and relationship status groups, particularly when the primary goal is to compare mean levels of dating anxiety. Further development of the scale is recommended before it can be used across country, gender, and relationship status groups.
AdamczykK. (2015). Development and validation of the Polish-language version of the Dating Anxiety Scale in a sample of young adults. Psychologia Społeczna, 4(35), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.7366/1896180020153508
2.
AdamczykK.SegrinCh. (2016). The mediating role of romantic desolation and dating anxiety in the association between interpersonal competence and life satisfaction among Polish young adults. Journal of Adult Development, 23(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9216-3
3.
AllenM.BourhisJ.Emmers-SommerT.SahlsteindE. (1998). Reducing dating anxiety: A meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 11(1), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367684
4.
AsherM.AderkaI. M. (2020). Dating with social anxiety: An empirical examination of momentary anxiety and desire for future interaction. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(1), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619867055
BerscheidE. S.ReganP. C. (2016). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Psychology Press.
8.
BoyleA. M.O’SullivanL. F. (2013). The influence of dating anxiety on normative experiences of dating, sexual interactions, and alcohol consumption among Canadian middle adolescents. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(2), 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.704987
9.
BrannonL. (2002). Psychologia rodzaju [Psychology of gender]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
10.
BrownT. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
11.
BuhrmesterD.FurmanW.WittenbergM. T.ReisH. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 991-1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.991
BullingerM.AlonsoJ.ApoloneG.LeplègeA.SullivanM.Wood-DauphineeS.GandekB.WagnerA.AaronsonN.BechP.FukuharaS.KaasaS.WareJ. E.Jr. (1998). Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The International Quality of Life Assessment Project approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 913-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00082-1
14.
BühlerJ. L.NikitinJ. (2020). Sociohistorical context and adult social development: New directions for 21st century research. American Psychologist, 75(4), 457-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000611
15.
ByrneB. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
16.
CalvertJ. D.MooreD.JensenB. J. (1987). Psychometric evaluation of the dating anxiety survey: A self-report questionnaire for the assessment of dating anxiety in males and females. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 9(3), 341-351. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00964562
ChalmersR. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
19.
ChenW. H.ThissenD. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1165285
20.
ChorneyD. B.MorrisT. L. (2008). The changing face of dating anxiety: Issues in assessment with special populations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15(3), 224-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00132.x
21.
ColeD. A.CieslaJ. A.SteigerJ. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381
22.
ConnollyJ.McDonaldK. P. (2020). Cross-cultural perspectives on dating and marriage. In HuppS.JewellJ. D. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development (pp. 1-13). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad486
CurranJ. P.GilbertF. S.LittleL. M. (1976). A comparison between behavioral replication training and sensitivity training approaches to heterosexual dating anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23(3), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.23.3.190
25.
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610373459
26.
DrymanM. T.GardnerS.WeeksJ. W.HeimbergR. G. (2016). Social anxiety disorder and quality of life: How fears of negative and positive evaluation relate to specific domains of life satisfaction. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 38(March), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.12.003
27.
EatonA. A.RoseS. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 64(11-12), 843-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9
28.
FitzpatrickJ.BlazekM.KazmierczakM.Lewandowska-WalterA.Pastwa-WojciechowskaB.BlazekW. (2014). Lifestyle and close relationship trends among young adults in Poland. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(7), 928-937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513510478
29.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
30.
GereJ.MacDonaldG. (2013). Assessing relationship quality across cultures: An examination of measurement equivalence. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 422-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12001
31.
GlickmanA. R.La GrecaA. M. (2004). The Dating Anxiety Scale for Adolescents: Scale development and associations with adolescent functioning. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 566-578. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_14
32.
GórskaM. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ-R). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000066
33.
HanceM. A.BlackhartG.DawM. (2018). Free to be me: The relationship between true self, rejection sensitivity, and the use of online dating sites. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 421-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1389684
34.
HeeneM.HilbertS.FreudenthalerH. H.BühnerM. (2012). Sensitivity of SEM fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Structural Equation Modeling, 19(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634710
35.
HopeD. A.HeimbergR. G. (1990). Dating anxiety. In LeitenbergH. (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 217-246). Plenum.
36.
HoutsC. R.CaiL. (2013). flexMIRT R user’s manual version 2: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring. Vector Psychometric Group.
37.
HuangC. D.ChurchA. T.KatigbakM. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(2), 192-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022197282004
38.
ImmekusJ. C.SnyderK. E.RalstonP. A. (2019). Multidimensional item response theory for factor structure assessment in educational psychology research. Frontiers in Education, 4(45), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00045
39.
La GrecaA. M.LopezN. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022684520514
40.
La GrecaA. M.MackeyE. R. (2007). Adolescents’ anxiety in dating situations: The potential role of friends and romantic partners. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 522-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701662097
MigliaccioT. A (2014). Typologies of men’s friendships: Constructing masculinity through them. Masculinities & Social Change, 3(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2014.47
45.
MorelliN. M.ElsonD.DuongJ. B.EvansM. C.VillodasM. T. (2020). Examining the factor structure and measurement invariance of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children in a diverse sample of trauma-exposed adolescents. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120939158
OrlandoM.ThissenD. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621603027004004
48.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
49.
Report on Demographic situation of Poland by the Government Population Council. (2019). Warszawa: Rządowa Rada Ludnościowa.
50.
SassD. A.SchmittT. A.MarshH. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.882658
51.
SegrinC. (1996). The relationship between social skills deficits and psychosocial problems: A test of a vulnerability model. Communication Research, 23(4), 425-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023004005.
52.
SchiltzH. K.MagnusB. E.McVeyA. J.HaendelA. D.DolanB. K.StanleyR. E.WillarK. A.PleissS. J.CarsonA. M.CarlsonM.MurphyC.VogtE. M.YundB. D.Van HeckeA. V. (2021). A psychometric analysis of the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents among youth with autism spectrum disorder: Caregiver-adolescent agreement, factor structure, and validity. Assessment, 28(1), 100-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119851563
53.
SidelingerR.FrisbyB.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2009). Dating anxiety among young adults: The impact of communicative attributes, mate value, and baggage on the dating experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 95th Annual Convention, Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago.
54.
SteenkampJ. B. E. M.BaumgartnerH. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
55.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906mbr2502_4
56.
StevensS. B.MorrisT. L. (2007). College dating and social anxiety: Using the Internet as a means of connecting to others. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9970
57.
StoverA. M.McLeodL. D.LangerM. M.ChenW.H.ReeveB. B. (2019). State of the psychometric methods: Patient-reported outcome measure development and refinement using Item Response Theory. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcome, 3(1), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0130-5
58.
SmockP. J.SchwartzCh. R. (2020). The demography of families: a review of patterns and change. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 9-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12612
59.
SzarotaP. (2011). Anatomia randki [The anatomy of dating]. Warszawa: MUZA SA.
60.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
61.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 10(6), 849-852. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
62.
WachterG. G.de ValkH. A. G. (2020). Dating relationships of the Turkish second generation in Europe: Patterns, partner origin and the role of parents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 79, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.08.009
63.
WarumzerE. (2013). Wzór idealnej randki a współczesne dążenie do idealnego związku [The model of ideal date against the modern quest for perfect relationship]. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Sociologica V, 2, 100-116.
64.
WatsonD.FriendR. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027806
65.
WestS. G.TaylorA. B.WuW. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-231). Guilford Press.
66.
WetzelE.LangF. J.BackM.VecchioneM.RogozaR.RobertsB. (2021). Measurement invariance of three narcissism questionnaires across the US, the UK, and Germany. Assessment, 28(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120907967
67.
WidamanK. F.FerrerE.CongerR. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
YoonM.MillsapR. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 435-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301677
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.
