Multi-Informant Test Anxiety Assessment of Adolescents

Abstract

A total of 263 junior and senior high school students (grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; ages 12 to 19) with relatively more informants identifying as females (57.4%) than males (42.6%) and more junior high school students (68.3%) than high school students (31.7%), along with 267 parents and 167 teachers responded to a student, parent, and teacher version of the German Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI-G) (Hoddapp & Benson, 1997). All reliabilities for all TAI-G scales for all three samples were above .70. The resulting data were fitted to two, three, and four factor models of test anxiety based on theoretical and empirical evidence. The four factor model (worry, emotion, distraction, lack of confidence) of the reduced (17 item) version of the TAI-G (Hoddapp & Benson, 1997) yielded the best fitting model for students (comparative fit index = .97; residual mean square = .042), parents (comparative fit index = .95; residual mean square = .073), and teachers (comparative fit index = .96; residual mean square = .080), thus providing very strong support for the proposed model. Sex, age, grade, and informant differences are presented and discussed. In conclusion, this study supports further research and use of a multi-informant assessment system of test anxiety.

Validity of the German Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI‐G) in an Australian sample

“…Sese et al (2010) reported deleting a poor fitting item on the 30-item TAI-G in order to obtain adequate structural validity in a Spanish sample, while in the Argentinian version, a total of two items were removed in order to obtain adequate fit (Heredia, Piemontesi, Burlan, & Hodapp, 2008). Furthermore, out of these studies, only two have examined the 17-item TAI-G (Harpell & Andrews, 2012;Hodapp & Benson, 1997), making support for the 17-item version limited. Moreover, the participants used in one study were Canadian students from Grades 7 to 12 (Harpell & Andrews, 2012), making generalisation to university populations questionable.…”

“…Furthermore, out of these studies, only two have examined the 17-item TAI-G (Harpell & Andrews, 2012;Hodapp & Benson, 1997), making support for the 17-item version limited. Moreover, the participants used in one study were Canadian students from Grades 7 to 12 (Harpell & Andrews, 2012), making generalisation to university populations questionable. In contrast, participants utilised by Hodapp and Benson (1997) comprised undergraduate university students from American and German samples.…”

“…The TAI-G has been validated across a range of cultures that include Germany (Keith, Hodapp, Schermelleh-Engel, & Moosbrugger, 2003;Rohrmann, Bechtoldt, Schnell, & Hodapp, 2010), Spain (Sese, Palmer, & Perez-Pareja, 2010), Canada (Harpell & Andrews, 2012), South Africa (Ringeisen, Buchwald, & Hodapp, 2010), and America (Hodapp & Benson, 1997). However, findings from different cultural samples used in these studies may not be generalisable to Australian students given that the reported occurrence and characteristics of anxiety seem to differ as a function of culture.…”

Análisis estructural y desarrollo de una versión breve de la versión en español del Inventario de Ansiedad ante Exámenes (TAI-E) en universitarios de Lima

“…Esto implica que la relación entre factores no puede ser omi da en el modelo analizado, ya que de ese modo se comete una mala especificación (Hu & Bentler, 1998) y podría perderse información importante que facilitaría una interpretación más certera de la estructura del TAI-E. Por otro lado, las elevadas correlaciones interfactoriales observadas tanto en estudios precedentes (Chapell et al, 2005;Oktedalen & Hagtvet, 2011;Papantoniou et al, 2011;Ware et al, 1990) como en los modelos oblicuos analizados en el presente estudio revelan que Emocionalidad y Preocupación no pueden ser considerados factores independientes, es decir, resulta di cil diferenciar ambos componentes en una situación de evaluación. Este parece ser una caracterís ca no solo del TAI, ya que otros instrumentos que enen como sustento el modelo dual también lo presentan (ver Ferrando, Varea, & Lorenzo, 1999) donde los componentes de Preocupación y Emocionalidad no se diferencian, o cuya correlación es de magnitud elevada (Harpell & Andrews, 2012;Heredia et al, 2008;Mowbray et al, 2015;Ringeisen et al, 2010); aunque también pudo influir otros factores, como el efecto piso, derivando en un factor de dificultad (Dominguez-Lara, 2013). Por ello, y con el respaldo del modelo bifactor analizado, un solo factor explica mejor la variabilidad de los ítems.…”

“…modificar algunos ítems) para minimizar el aparente solapamiento entre Preocupación y Emocionalidad (TAI-G; Hodapp, 1991). A pesar de ello, las correlaciones se man enen entre moderadas y altas (Harpell & Andrews, 2012;Heredia et al, 2008;Mowbray, Jacobs, & Boyle, 2015;Ringeisen, Buchwald, & Hodapp, 2010). Del mismo modo, el puntaje total fue jus ficado a través de modelos jerárquicos indirectos (e.g., Keith, Hodapp, Schermelleh-Engel, & Moosbrugger, 2003;Mowbray et al, 2015), aunque este no es el procedimiento más adecuado para evaluar la influencia directa del constructo de orden superior sobre los ítems (Canivez, 2016).…”