Background The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) is a transdiagnostic measure that assesses severity and impairment associated with anxiety disorders. However, its psychometric properties were primarily examined in English-speaking or western countries. Therefore, this study aims to examine its psychometric parameters in the Czech Republic. Methods A large representative sample (n = 1738), a clinical sample (n = 57) and a retest sample (n = 20) were used. In addition to the OASIS, conventional measures of anxiety, depression, personality traits, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and other scales were also administered. Moreover, we examined the latent structure, reliability, validity, and the cut-off score for the Reliable Change Index (RCI) and the Clinically Significant Change Index (CSI). Results Higher anxiety was found in females, religious non-church members, and students. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the adequate fit of the unidimensional solution: x2(4) = 3.20; p < 0.525; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.000;RMSEA = 0, SRMR = 0. The measurement equivalence examination indicated that the OASIS measures anxiety invariantly between males and females. The validity of the OASIS was supported by positive associations with neuroticism, depression, perceived stress, guilt, shame, and the established anxiety measures. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96, McDonald’s omega = 0.96). The test-retest reliability was acceptable (r = 0.66). The cut-off for the CSI is 6 and the RCI is 5.32. Conclusions The OASIS represents a reliable and valid instrument for assessing anxiety in adults. Due to its shortness, excellent psychometric properties, and percentile norms, it is especially useful for short and accurate screening of anxiety and mapping therapeutic changes in clinical practice.

No abstract

Background Measuring implicit attitudes is difficult due to social desirability (SD). A new method, the Emotion Based Approach (EBA), can solve this by using emotions from a display of faces as response categories. We applied this on an EBA Spirituality tool (EBA-SPT) and an Actual Situation tool (EBA-AST). Our aim was to assess the structure, reliability and validity of the tools and to compare two EBA assessment approaches, i.e., an explicit one (only assessing final replies to items) and an implicit one (assessing also the selection process). Methods We obtained data on a sample of Czech adults (n = 522, age 30.3±12.58; 27.0% men) via an online survey; cortisol was assessed in 46 participants. We assessed the structure and psychometric properties (internal consistency and test-retest reliability; convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity) of the EBA, and examined the differences between explicit vs. implicit EBA approaches. Results We found an acceptable-good internal consistency reliability of the EBA tools, acceptable discriminant validity between them and low (neutral expression) to good (joy) test-retest reliability for concrete emotions assessed by the tools. An implicit EBA approach showed stronger correlations between emotions and weaker convergent validity, but higher criterion validity, than an explicit approach and standard questionnaires. Conclusion Compared to standard questionnaires, EBA is a more reliable approach for measuring attitudes, with an implicit approach that reflects the selection process yielding the best results.