The
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS)
“What I Think and Feel”
Type
of Instrument:
The
RCMAS is a 37-item self-report inventory used to measure anxiety in children,
for clinical purposes (diagnosis and treatment evaluation), educational
settings, and for research purposes. The RCMAS consists of 28 Anxiety items
and 9 Lie (social desirability) items. Each item is purported to embody a
feeling or action that reflects an aspect of anxiety, hence the subtitle, “What
I think and Feel”. It is a relatively brief instrument, which has been
subjected to extensive study to ensure that it is psychometrically sound.
However, it is also advisable that the RCMAS only be used as part of a
complete clinical evaluation when diagnosing and treating a child’s anxiety
(Gerard and Reynolds, 1999, p.323).
Devised
By:
The
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale was developed by Reynolds and
Richmond (1978) to assess “the degree and quality of anxiety experienced by
children and adolescents” (Gerald and Reynolds, 1999, p. 323). It is based
on the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS), which was devised by
Casteneda, McCandless and Palermo (1956). The Revised version of the CMAS
deletes, adds and reorders items from the CMAS to meet psychometric standards.
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) also renamed the instrument, “What I Think and
Feel”, although subsequent papers primarily refer to it as the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS).
·
History
of Development:
Castaneda, McCandless and
Palermo (1956) first reported a scale with standardised data, which could be
used to measure anxiety in children, the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(CMAS). The CMAS was based on a trait theory of anxiety. It was an amended
version of an instrument used to measure manifest anxiety in adults, Taylor’s
(1951) Manifest Anxiety Scale. The Manifest Anxiety Scale was a compilation of
items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
While the CMAS was widely
used and published, Reynolds and Richmond (1978) reported a number of issues
with the CMAS that prompted the revision. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) hoped
to revise the CMAS to identify items that meet Flannigan, Peters and Conry’s
(1969) “criteria for a good test item” (p.272), to improve the
psychometric properties of the instrument (according to Guilford, 1954), and
to meet the American Psychological Association (1954) guidelines for
psychological tests.
Reynolds and Paget (1981)
also noted the need to develop an instrument that could measure a broader
range of anxiety and treatment effects, and that could reflect research that
suggests that “anxiety is multidimensional” (, p352). Reynolds and
Richmond (1978) also wanted a scale that could be administered in less time,
with individuals or groups of children, aged from 6 to 19 years. The wording
of items had to be adjusted to accommodate the younger children and poor
readers.
Reliability:
Several
types of reliability can be demonstrated with the RCMAS, in terms of the
internal consistency of the instrument, stability, and possibly equivalence,
but not in terms of the inter-rater reliability. Reynolds and other researches
have focused on developing an instrument that was psychometrically sound and
that could be used by a variety of practitioners (clinicians, teachers and
researchers), without attention to potential variations with application or
interpretation in its use.
·
Split-Half/Cronbach’s
Alpha:
Reynolds and Richmond
(1978) argue that the 33 % reduction in the length of the CMAS scale and
reduction in administration time does not detract from the reliability of the
RCMAS. The Kuber-Richardson (KR) analysis of variance method was used to
establish coefficients of internal consistency. Reynolds and Richmond (1978)
report that with the 37 items selected for the RCMAS, a KR20 reliability estimate of .83 is yielded,
confirming internal consistency of the RCMAS.
When making technical
recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques, the APA
(1954) note the risks associated with computing reliability and validity
estimates on the same sample analysed to select the test items. Hence,
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) conducted a second, cross-validation assessment
of 167 children, from grades two, five, nine, ten and eleven, in a different
school district. This second assessment group yielded a KR20 reliability estimate of .85, and further
support for internal consistency.
Reynolds, Bradley and Steele (1980) administered the
RCMAS to 97 kindergarten children and demonstrated reliability with
coefficient alpha (a
= .79
with males, a
=.85 with females,
and a
=.82 for the total
sample). These correlations are high and similarly indicate internal
consistency when the RCMAS is used with younger children.
Gerard and Reynolds (1999)
also report that with few exceptions, relatively high coefficients alpha for
the total Anxiety Scale score (a
= .80 range), are indicative of “good sampling of the general domain of
potential anxiety items” (p.327) and internal consistency according to
Cronbach (1951).
·
Test-Retest
Reliability:
Wisniewski, Mulick, Genshaft and Coury (1987)
examined the test-retest reliabilities of the RCMAS with 161 children in
Grades 6 to 8. Analyses of retesting after one and five weeks indicated “good
reliability” (Pearson correlations from .60 to .88, significant at p
£
.01, p. 67) and an insignificant difference between test and retest mean raw
scores. These results would support the stability of the scale over brief
periods.
With retesting after a substantial longer period,
nine months, Reynolds (1981) found a .68 correlation between RCMAS Anxiety
Scale scores and a .58 correlation with the Lie Scale scores, for 534 children
in Grades 4 to 6. This would be indicative of relatively high temporal
stability.
·
Alternate
Form Reliability:
The establishment of
temporal , test-retest reliability negates the need to use alternate forms in
many instances.
However, favourable
comparisons can be made between the reliability coefficients with the RCMAS
and the CMAS. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) report KR20 reliability
estimate of .83 with the RCMAS and cite comparative estimates with the CMAS.
In particular, Kitano (1960) reported a reliability coefficient of .86; Finch,
Montgomery and Deardoff (1974) of .77; and by Allison (1970) of .84 for boys
and .88 for girls. However, there may be some question about whether the RCMAS
and the CMAS are different tests or different forms of an instrument (one an
abbreviated and arguably an improved version, and one a longer version,
respectively).
·
Inter-rater
Reliability:
With Reynolds and Paget (1981), the 4,972
children were variously tested by clinical psychologists, school
psychologists, classroom teachers and school administrators. However, this is
primarily a self-report measure and no statistical comparisons were made
regarding the different raters.
Validity:
There is substantive research confirming
the validity of the RCMAS as a measure of chronic manifest anxiety in
children, dating back to the original article reporting the development of the
RCMAS (Reynolds and Richmond, 1978). In addition, the RCMAS is frequently used
in research to validate other instruments and to measure treatment effects.
·
Content
Validity:
In the draft version of the RCMAS, Reynolds and
Richmond (1978) added twenty items to cover areas that teachers and clinicians
identified as not being covered by the previous scale. The wording of the
resultant 73 items was modified by reading specialists, to meet the reading
level of Grade three children and to reflect general changes in word usage
since the test was first released.
 Two item statistics were computed for the 73 draft items, the difficulty
index, p, and biserial correlation
of the item to the total test score, rbis.
With the Anxiety Scale, items were eliminated if they did not meet both
criteria, with the difficulty index (.3 £
p £
.7) and with biserial correlation (rbis
³
.4). Lie Scale items were eliminated if they correlated .30 or higher with the
anxiety scale or if they failed to correlate significantly with any other lie
item.
A total of 28 anxiety items (25 from the CMAS and
three new items), and nine Lie items were retained to form the current 37
items of the RCMAS. The results would suggest that the 28 anxiety items that
were finally selected, adequately represent all aspects of the anxiety
construct, thereby indicating content validity.
·
Construct
Validity:
Reynolds and Richmond (1979
) conducted a factor analysis with the Anxiety Scale items, with the test
development sample of the RCMAS. Three anxiety factors were identified and
named, based on item content: “physiological”, “worry/oversensitivity”,
and “concentration.” However, there were a number of anomalies with the
results that were attributed to the small sample size of 329 subjects compared
with the 28 variables.
Reynolds and Paget (1981)
attempted to replicate Reynolds and Richmond’s (1979) study with a much
larger sample size of 4,972 children, and to extend the analysis to the Lie
Scale items. Responses were factor analysed through the method of principal
factors, which identified a large general factor on which substantive loadings
were found for all 28 Anxiety Scale items but no loadings above .21 for the
Lie Scale items. This would lend support to the RCMAS being a measure of one
construct, anxiety (Ag).
Factors extracted through
the factor analysis were then rotated orthogonally through the varimax
procedure, to maximise the variance accounted for by each factor and to
increase the distinction between factors. Examination of Scree plots and
eigenvalues identified three to eight factors, but further analysis and
examination of the item content of the factorial groupings indicated the five
factor solution as the most psychologically meaningful and interpretable
solution.
The pattern of factor
loadings with the five-factor solution revealed two Lie Scale factors
(accounting for 75% and 25% of the variance) and the three distinct Anxiety
Scale factors (accounting for 34%, 42% & 24% of the variance). The three
Anxiety Scale factors identified by Reynolds and Paget (1981) also resembled
the three found by Reynolds and Richmond (1979) but without the anomalies
found in the earlier research.
Further analysis and
additional research has found that the five-factor solution is consistent
across gender, ethnicity (race), and intelligence (Gerard and Reynolds, 1999).
The five factors confirmed
by Reynolds and Paget (1981) are as follows:
Anxiety Scale Factors:
Item Numbers
The Physiological Factor
1, 5, 9, 13,
17, 19, 21, 25, 29, 33
The Worry/Oversensitivity Factor
2, 6, 7, 10,
14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 37
The
Concentration Anxiety Factor
3, 11, 15, 23, 27, 31, 35
Lie Scale Factors:
Lie 1
4, 8,
12, 16, 20, 24
Lie 2
28, 32,
36
Reynolds and Paget (1981)
calculated two indices of factorial similarity, the coefficient of congruence
(rc,
Harman, 1976; Mulaik, 1971) and the salient variable similarity index (s , Cattell, 1978). Reynolds and Paget (1981) reported rc’s
ranging from .91 to
.99, and highly significant s-values
(p < .01), which would
suggest that the five factors were invariant in relation to gender or race
(ethnicity).
The same invariance was
found with the general anxiety factor (Ag) which would lend support to the construct validity of the
RCMAS, or the internal consistency of the RCMAS. Reynolds and Paget (1981)
indicated the need for further analysis of the internal validity of the RCMAS
and that they were currently preparing normative data across gender, race and
age (see Reynolds and Paget, 1983).
Pina, Silverman, Saavedra
and Weems (2001) analysed the RCMAS Lie Scale with 284 anxious children.
Results indicated that the Lie Scale scores were also predictive of the
children’s anxiety levels, and that they could distinguish between children
with anxiety disorders and children with externalising disorders. Hence, the
Lie Scale was said to have utility in terms of predicting a child’s anxiety
level.
Debate in the literature
also tends to lend support to the Lie Scale being a measure of social
desirability in anxiety, especially with younger children (Reynolds and
Richmond, 1978). Dadds, Perrin and Yule (1998) report indications that social
desirability levels partly explain the discrepancies found between child and
adult reports of anxiety in youth. Hagborg (1991) also reported favourable
findings that support the concurrent validity of the RCMAS Lie Scale as a
measure of social desirability.
Using concept mapping and
confirmatory factor analysis, White and Farrell (2001) compared the
empirically derived factor structure of the RCMAS with “theory-driven models
derived from 8 experts on child anxiety” (p.333), with 898 Grade 7 children,
primarily black Americans (94%). White and Farrell (2001) report analyses that
identify three-factor models with both the RCMAS and the expert-derived model
(anxious arousal, social evaluation-oversensitivity and worry). However,
empirical support for a higher order factor was only found with the
expert-derived model, which excluded items of dysphoric mood. White and
Farrell (2001) argue that the RCMAS includes items that are “related to a
construct or dimension that resembles dysphoric mood” (p.336).
There are some limitations
with White and Farrell’s (2001) study, including the narrow age range (10.8
to 14.1 years), similar ethnicity of the subjects (94% African American or
black), and subjects who also report lower levels of anxiety compared to the
standardised sample. Such limitations would limit generalisability of White
and Farrell’s (2001) results. However, White and Farrell (2001) also claim
that the expert-derived model can meaningfully contribute towards improving
our understanding of the assessment of anxiety using the RCMAS. White and
Farrell (2001) suggest that future research consider refining the domains
assessed by the RCMAS, and possibly including domains reflecting anxious
apprehension and behavioural avoidance, as indicated by the experts.
·
Convergent
or Concurrent Validity:
While investigating the construct validity of the
RCMAS, Reynolds (1982) also found large positive correlations between the
RCMAS and the trait measure of anxiety, the STAIC, but not with the state
measures of anxiety. These findings are consistent with earlier findings by
Reynolds (1980), who found high correlations between the RCMAS and STAIC trait
(r
= .85, p £
.05) but not with STAIC state measures (r
= .24, p > .05).
Reynolds (1985) replicated these results with a
sample of 465 gifted children (IQ’s higher than 130), who tended to score
significantly lower on all measures of anxiety compared with normative
samples. The convergent and divergent validity of the RCMAS was assessed in
relation to measures of trait and state anxiety with the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory for Children (STAIC). Reynolds (1985) found that the RCMAS scores
correlated highly with a Trait Anxiety scale (r
= .78, p < .001) but not with a
State Anxiety scale (r = .08). This
would lend support for the convergent and divergent validity of the RCMAS.
Lee, Piersel, Friedlander and Collamer (1988)
examined the concurrent validity of the RCMAS with ninety 13 to 17 year olds,
and found that it correlated well with a similar measure of anxiety using the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
However, Lee, Piersel and Unruh (1989) evaluated
the concurrent validity of the RCMAS Physiological subscale with parent and
teacher behavioural ratings of anxiety/somatic complaints, depression and
aggression with eighty 10 to 17 year old males who had academic or behavioural
problems. In contrast to earlier (and later) findings, Lee et al (1989) found
a lack of convergent and discriminant validity between the RCMAS and
behavioural ratings. This anomaly might reflect problems with the alternative
comparative measure used in this study, the behaviour ratings, and the
different perspective of adults and children.
Muris, Merckelbach, Mayer, van Brakel, Thissen,
Moulaert and Gadget (1998) compared the Screen for Child Anxiety Related
Emotional Disorders (SCARED), the Fear Survey Schedule for Children –
Revised (FSSC-R) and the RCMAS. They found that scores on all three tests were
positively related, in a theoretically meaningful manner, and hence evidence
of concurrent validity.
Muris, Merckelbach, Ollendick, King and Bogie
(2002) examined the psychometric properties of six anxiety scales to be used
with children: the RCMAS; the trait anxiety version of the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC); the Fear Survey Schedule
for Children – Revised (FSSC-R); the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for
Children (MASC); the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders
(SCARED); and the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS).
With a sample of 521 “normal adolescents” (p.
753), Muris et al (2002) found that the childhood anxiety scales were reliable
in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas generally well above
.60). Convergent validity was indicated by the substantial correlations
between the anxiety scores on the six questionnaires. Particularly strong
correlations were found between the RCMAS and the STAIC (r
= 0.88), and between the RCMAS and the SCARED
(r = 0.85), which would
suggest that they are likely to be tapping highly similar or the same
construct(s). Correlations between the RCMAS and the FSSC-R were said to be
moderate (r = 0.63), with
suggestions that the FSSC-R was tapping slightly different aspects of anxiety
(such as specific fears and phobias).
Muris et al (2002)
found that the RCMAS, the STAIC, the SCARED and the SCAB all correlated highly
with an index of depression (CDI), (r ‘s in the .70 range), and slightly less correlations between the
CDI and the other two anxiety measures, the FSSC-R and the MASC. This would be
indicative of considerable overlap between anxiety, as indexed by these
measures of anxiety and depression. However, the correlations between the six
anxiety scales in Muris et al’s (2002) study were higher than the
correlations between the anxiety scales and the depression measure, which “underlines
the divergent validity of the childhood anxiety measures” (p.767).
Muris et al (2002) conclude that the six
questionnaires all have satisfactory psychometric properties. The only
differentiating factor between the new and old anxiety scales might be the new
scales’ closer links with the DSM diagnostic system, which could assist
clinical communications about anxiety problems with children (citing Chorpita,
Yim, Moffit, Umemoto and Francis, 2000).
·
Discriminant Validity:
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) note that “evidence
of discriminant validity will be necessary for the revised instrument” but
that it was not yet available (p.278).
Mattison, Bagnato and
Brubaker (1988) studied the clinical relevance of the RCMAS as a tool used to
discriminate between children with a DSM-III anxiety disorder and other
DSM-III psychiatric diagnoses. They found that the RCMAS Worry/Oversensitivity
subfactor of the Anxiety Scale can significantly discriminate between those
children who have a diagnosable anxiety disorder and those children who do not
have an anxiety disorder. The use of the RCMAS was recommended by Mattison,
Bagnato and Brubaker (1988) as part a multi-method of assessment for
identifying children with anxiety disorders. Accordingly, the RCMAS could be
considered useful as a diagnostic tool and for screening those children who
may be in need of counselling.
Perrin and Last (1992) compared discriminant
validity of the RCMAS, the Modified State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children
(STAIC-M) and the Fear Survey Schedule for Children – Revised (FSSC-R). With
their sample of 213 youth, Perrin
and Last (1992) found that the FSSC-R could not discriminate but the RCMAS and
the STAIC-M could distinguish between
youth who had never been given a psychiatric diagnosis and those who had a
diagnosis. The discriminate failure with FSSC-R may reflect anomalies noted
with the FSSC-R in Muris et al’s (2002) study, in particular, that the FSSC-R
may be tapping into slightly different aspects of anxiety. Furthermore, while
the RCMAS and STAIC-M could distinguish between who had a diagnosable problem
and those who did not, they could not distinguish between who had a diagnosis
of an anxiety disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
This would indicate the need for some caution and the importance of the RCMAS
being used as part of a clinical assessment.
Dierker, Albano, Clarke, Heimberg, Kendall,
Merikangas, Lewinsohn, Offord, Kessler and Kupfer (2001) examined the
disrciminative accuracy of three rating scales for detecting anxiety and
depression with children (the RCMAS; the Center for Epidemiological
Studies-Depression Scale or CES-D; and the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for
Children or MASC). Scores with the three scales were compared with diagnostic
interviews for 632 youth. The MASC scores were said to be “most strongly
associated” with individual anxiety disorders, and the CES-D composite score
was linked with a diagnosis of a major depression, while the RCMAS was said to
be the least successful tool for discriminating between anxiety and
depression.
Stark and Laurent’s (2001) used a joint factor
analysis with the RCMAS and the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) to
identify which items uniquely identified depression and anxiety with 750
children in Grades 4 to 7. Stark and Laurent (2001) identified an abbreviated
version of the scales (with nine unique depression items and seven unique
anxiety items, which was validated with a separate sample of 131 students.
Stark and Laurent (2001) also suggested the need to explore alternative ways
to score the RCMAS and CDI to eliminate potential problems with overlapping
items.
The results of research by Perrin and Last
(1992), Dierker et al (2001) and Stark and Laurent (2001) indicate the need
for caution and further research with respect to the discriminant validity of
the RCMAS to distinguish between anxiety and depression in children. It may be
as White and Farrell (2001) suggest, the RCMAS needs further refinement and
possibly the exclusion of items which relate to dysphoric mood or items which
tap into depression.
·
Criterion
(or Predictive) Validity:
Hadwin, Frost, French and Richards (1997) found in a
sample of 40 children aged 7 to 9 years, that levels of anxiety as measured by
the RCMAS, could significantly predict the children’s interpretations of
ambiguous stimuli as threatening.
Stallard, Velleman, Langsford and Baldwin (2001)
conducted a univariate analysis of variance to determine whether the number of
coping strategies used by children involved in everyday traffic accidents was
affected by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the child’s age or
gender, the presence of depression in the child, or the presence of anxiety in
the child (as measured by the RCMAS). They found that only the child’s age
and PTSD were significantly linked to the number of coping strategies used,
not anxiety. A logistic regression analysis also found that anxiety measured
by the RCMAS was not predictive of PTSD at six-weeks post accident. Gender was
found to be independently predictive of PTSD.
Future research might consider the predictive
validity of anxiety, as measured by the RCMAS, on academic achievement. Gaudry
and Spielberger (1971) found a negative relationship between anxiety and
academic achievement, but it seems performance and achievement has a more
complex relationship with anxiety. There is also the interactive effect of
intelligence to be considered when making any predictions about academic or
vocational success.
Another consideration for future investigations
would be the interactive effect of anxiety and group membership (such as
ethnicity or gender) when predicting behavioural problems or future adjustment
in children.
Administration:
The
RCMAS is suitable for individual or group administration, by clinicians,
researchers or teachers, with 6 to 19 year old children. The scale is best
read out to children in Grades one and two (or to children who have an
equivalent reading age). Grade three and older children need to be monitored
carefully as they read the items themselves, with explanations given for words
that they do not understand.
Reynolds and Richmond
(1978) advocate for the use of the RCMAS with children in Grades three to
twelve, and more tentatively (“probably satisfactory”, p. 279), for Grades
one and two, or with children functioning intellectually in that lower range.
Caution is recommended
for the younger children because of the relatively higher Lie Scale scores
(Reynolds and Richmond, 1978). Reynolds, Bradley and Steele (1980) found that
the younger age group understand and respond reliably when the items are read
to them.
Scoring
Method and Interpretations of results:
Each item is given a score of one for a “yes”
response, yielding a Total Anxiety score (Ag).
Three empirically derived Anxiety Subscales scores (Physiological Anxiety,
Worry/Oversensitivity, and Social Concerns/Concentration) and Lie Scale scores
can be calculated. The Lie scale is best thought of as a social desirability
scale as it does not directly and conclusively detect “lying”.
Stallard,
Velleman, Langsford and Baldwin (2001) recommend that an overall cut-off point
of 19 out of 28 be used to identify children experiencing clinically
significant levels of anxiety (p.200).
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) suggest that scores
within one standard deviation of the mean, at the appropriate grade level, be
used to indicate scoring within the normal range of variability (see below for
norms of means and standard deviations or sources for norms).
Scores falling at least one standard deviation from
the mean (T ³
60) are thought to be of clinical interest. However, T-scores above 70 should
be interpreted with caution. The child’s response pattern should be examined
with respect to a problematic pattern of endorsement or reading difficulties.
High scores on the sub-scales can represent different
aspects of anxiety, which can be used to develop hypotheses about the origin
and nature of a child’s anxiety.
(1)
High scores on the Physiological Factor
(items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25,
29, 33) can indicate physiological signs of anxiety (eg sweaty hands, stomach
aches).
(2)
High scores on the Worry/Oversensitivity
Factor (items 2, 6, 7, 10,
14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 37) would suggest that the child internalises their
experiences of anxiety and that he or she may feel overwhelmed and withdraw.
(3)
High scores on the Concentration
Anxiety Factor (items 3, 11,
15, 23, 27, 31, 35) would suggest that the child is likely to feel that he or
she is unable to meet the expectations of other important people, inadequate
and unable to concentrate on tasks.
Norms:
·
Standardisation:
Standardisation sample populations for the RCMAS are
thought to be large, diverse and representative.
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) computed means and
standard deviations (SD) for 329 school age children., who were all tested on
the same day. The researchers were not given permission to collect data about
the socio-economic status of the children, but to ensure representation of the
sample, there was random selection of classes at each grade level from an
urban school district. However, Reynolds and Richmond (1978) also note the
need for further study to determine the generalizability of the instrument to
other populations.
Reynolds and Paget (1981) tested 4,972 children, aged
six to nineteen years, from thirteen different states in the USA and eighty
school districts. While socio-economic data was also not available to Reynolds
and Paget (1981), they argued that their sample was representative of
cross-section of the school attending population because rural and urban areas
were equally represented, including inner city and high poverty districts; and
specific neighbourhoods with “known SES composition to ensure the
representative nature of the sample” (p.353).
Reynolds and Paget (1983) also note that the
4,972 children aged 6 to 19 years, from thirteen states in the USA, are
representative of all geographic regions in the USA. From the data, Reynolds
and Paget (1983) established separate norms for gender, race and age for the
three Anxiety subscales, the two Lie Scales and the total Anxiety Scale. Using
the method of rolling weighted averages standard score distributions were
derived from the raw score distributions, whereby a Total Anxiety score
becomes a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The
subscale scores have a mean of 10 and standard deviations of 3.
·
Means
and Standard Deviations - Sources:
(1)
Mertin, Dibnah, Crosbie & Bulkeley (2001)
–
British Sample (8 to 12 year olds)
Mertin, Dibnah, Crosbie and Bulkeley (2001)
questioned the applicability of North American norms with the RCMAS to a
British population. By computing means by age and gender, for 575 English
children aged 8 to 12 years, Mertin et al (2001) found that eight year old
English girls were less anxious than their North American equivalent; and that
most English males were less anxious than their North American equivalent.
Mertin et al (2001) also note language differences and advise that the RCMAS
be used as part of a structured interview rather than as a self-report
questionnaire.
(2)
Reynolds and Paget (1981; 1983)
–
North American Sample (6 to 19 year olds)
(3)
Reynolds, Bradley & Steele (1980)
-
Preliminary Norms North American Sample (kindergarten age
(4)
Reynolds and Richmond (1978)
–
North American sample (6 to 19 year olds)
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) data:
The Anxiety Scale
Mean = 13.84
SD = 5.79
The Lie Scale
Mean = 3.56
SD = 2.37
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) suggest that scores
within one standard deviation of the mean, at the appropriate grade level, be
used to indicate scoring within the normal range of variability. Reynolds and
Richmond (1978, p.276) also note that the Anxiety scale correlated
significantly with the Lie scale, r(327)
= .15; p £
.01.
Means and SD were also obtained for the RCMAS by
Grade, Race and Gender (Reynolds and Richmond, 1978, Tables II and III, pp.
276-277):
Anxiety Scale
Lie Scale
Mean SD
N
Mean SD
Grade
1
13.70 4.85
23
6.00 1.95
2
16.13 6.42
30
4.63 2.55
3
12.78 6.50
32
3.97 2.18
4
16.64 5.70
28
2.25 1.65
5
12.52 5.33
33
2.70 2.47
5
13.82 5.28
28
4.18 2.04
6
11.85 5.27
26
1.93 1.67
8
14.50 5.22
30
2.57 1.87
9
13.25 6.27
40
3.70 1.84
10
13.23 5.85
22
3.68 2.48
11
13.96 5.87
28
3.68 2.75
12
13.67 4.58
9
4.33 2.29
Gender
Females
14.97 5.60
173
3.66 2.45
Males
12.58 5.75
156
3.45 2.28
Race
Blacks
14.09 5.30
172
4.02 2.09
Whites
13.56 6.29
157
3.06 2.56
With the Anxiety Scale and the Lie Scale, Reynolds
and Richmond (1978) computed a three way ANOVA for grade, race and gender, and
submitted the variances to separate F
tests. With the Anxiety Scale, no significant effect was found for grade or
race, but females scored significantly higher than males (F (1,283) = 10.87; p £ .001), (p277). This may reflect speculation
that females more readily admit to anxiety than males (Sarason, Davidson,
Lighthall, Waite and Ruebush, 1960, cited in Reynolds and Richmond , 1978). It
was also consistent with previous research using the CMAS (Bledsoe, 1973,
cited in Reynolds and Richmond, 1978).
With the Lie Scale, there was no significant effect
with gender in the Reynolds and Richmond (1978) sample, but blacks reportedly
scored significantly higher than whites on the Lie Scale, for which there was
no explanation. Grade anomalies were also noted. With the exception of Grades
two and twelve, Grade one children scored significantly higher than all other
grade children (Duncan’s multiple range test procedure, p £
.05); and with the exception of Grades five and eight, Grades seven and four
scored significantly lower scores than all other grade children (p
£ .05), (p278). Reynolds and Richmond (1978)
suggest that Grade variations in the Lie Scale may reflect the unique
characteristics of the population, or an indication of defensiveness or social
desirability, especially with younger children. Hence, while a high Lie score
of six or more may invalidate a high Anxiety score, it might also provide
clinical information about the child’s response style, or personality
characteristics. This would be true for most lie scales.
·
Cross
Cultural Validity:
Studies of cross-cultural validity of the RCMAS
have tended to focus on issues of validity with respect to gender and
ethnicity. Reynolds, Plake and Harding (1983) found that the RCMAS does
contain some potentially biased items in terms of different gender and race
response, but the difference was not clinically significant. Reynolds and
Paget (1981)demonstrated equivalence with the factor structure for different
genders and race.
Wilson, Chibaiwa, Majoni, Masukume and Nkoma
(1990) found that the RCMAS was a modestly reliable measure with 961 Zimbabwe
children but a factor analysis failed to establish the validity of the RCMAS
as a diagnostic or research tool with Zimbabwe children.
Boyd, Kostanski, Gullone, Ollendick and Shek
(2000) looked at the prevalence of anxiety and depression in 1,299 adolescents
in Melbourne using the RCMAS and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale and
found “striking differences” (p.479) between the prevalence in different
countries, which might have implications for the use of norms from different
countries. Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety in Britain, Canada
and the United States were considered to be “similar” or comparative, with
comparative rates in Asian countries but the highest rates of anxiety and
depression were found in Eastern European countries. Australian data, which
identified rates 14.2% of adolescents being depressed and 13.2% being anxious,
were said to be comparable with Canada and Hong Kong.
Boyd et al’s (2000) results would tend to lend
support to use of the North American and British normative data with
Australian children, but the ethnic background of the child might also need to
be considered.
References:
American Psychological Association (APA) (1954) Technical
Recommendations for psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques (Washington,
APA)
Allison, D.E. (1970) “Test Anxiety, stress and
intelligence-test performance”, Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, vol. 2(11), pp. 26-37, cited in Reynolds
and Richmond (1978).
Bledsoe, J.C. (1973) “Sex and grade differences in
children’s manifest anxiety”, Psychological
Reports, vol. 32, pp. 285-286, cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).
Boyd, C.P.; Kostanski, M.; Gullone, E.; Ollendick,
T.H.; and Shek, D.T.L. (2000) “Prevalence of anxiety and depression in
Australian Adolescents; Comparisons with worldwide data”,
Journal of Genetic Psychology,
vol. 161(4), pp. 479-492.
Castaneda, A.; McCandless, B.R.; and Palermo, D.S.
(1956) “The children’s form of the manifest anxiety scale, Child Development, vol. 27(3), pp.317-326, cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
Cattell, R.B. (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioural and life
sciences, (New York, Plenum Press), cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Chorpita, B.F.; Yim, L.; Moffit, C.; Umemoto, L.A.;
and Francis, S.E. (2000) assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and
depression in children: A revised child anxiety and depression scale”, Behaviour
Research and Therapy, vol. 38, pp. 835-855, cited in Muris et al, 2002.
Cronbach, L. (1951) “Coefficient alpha and the
internal structure of tests, Psychometrika,
vol. 16, pp297-334, cited in Gerard and Reynolds, 1999.
Dadds, M.R.; Perrin, S.; and Yule, W. (1998) “Social
desirability and self-reported anxiety in children: An analysis of the RCMAS
Lie Scale”, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 26(4), pp. 311-317.
Devilly, G.J. and Sanders, M.R. (1993) “Hey dad,
Watch Me: The Effects of Training a Child to Teach Pain Management Skills to a
Parent with Recurrent Headaches”, Behaviour
Change, vol. 10(4), pp. 237-243.
Dierker, L.C.; Albano, A.M.; Clarke, G.N.; Heimberg,
R.G.; Kendal, P.C.; Merikangas, K.R.; Lewinsohn, P.M.; Offord, D.R.; Kessler,
R.; and Kupfer, D.J. (2001), “Screening for anxiety and Depression in early
Adolescence”, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
vol. 40(8), pp. 929-936.
Finch, A.J.; Montgomery, L.E. and
Deardoff, P.A. (1974) “Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale with emotionally
disturbed children”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 34, p.68, cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).
Flannigan, P.J.;
Peters, C.J. and Conry, J.L. (1969) “Item analysis of the Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale with the retarded”, Journal
of Educational Research, vol. 62(10), pp. 472-477, cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
Gaudry, E.; and Spielberger, D. (1971) Anxiety
and Educational Achievement, (Sydney, Wiley), cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
Gerard, A.B.; and Reynolds, C.R. (1999) “Characteristics
and applications of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”,
in Maruish, M.E. (ed.) The use of
psychological testing for treatment and planning and outcomes assessment
(2nd edition, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 323-340.
Guilford, J.P. (1954) Psychometric
Methods (2nd edition, New York, McGraw-Hill), cited in Reynolds
and Richmond (1978).
Hadwin, J.; Frost, S.; French, C.C.; and Richards, A.
(1997) “Cognitive processing and trait anxiety in typically developing
children: Evidence for an Interpretation Bias”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 106(3), pp. 486-490.
Hagborg, W.J. (1991) “The revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale and Social Desirability”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 51 (2), pp423-427.
Harman, H.H. (1976) Modern Factor Analysis, (2nd edition, Chicago, University
of Chicago Press), cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Kitano, H.L. (1960)
“Validity of the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale and the modified
revised California inventory”, Child Development, vol. 31, pp. 67-72, cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
Lee, S.W.; Piersel, W.C.; and Unruh, L. (1989) “Concurrent
Validity of the Psychological subscale of the Revised Children’s Manifest
Anxiety Scale: A multitrait-multimethod analysis”,
Journal of Psychological
Assessment, vol. 7(3), pp. 246-254.
Lee, S.W.; Piersel, W.C.; Friedlander, R.; and
Collamer, W. (1988) “Concurrent Validity of the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) for adolescents”,
Educational and Psychological
Measurement,
Vol. 48(2), pp. 429-433.
Mattison, R.E.; Bagnato, S.J.; and Brubaker, B.H.
(1988) “Diagnostic utility of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale” in children with DSM-III anxiety disorders”, Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, vol 2(2), pp. 147-155.
Mertin, P.; Dibnah, C.; Crosbie, V.; and Bulkeley, R.
(2001) “Using North American instruments with British samples: Norms for the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale in the UK”, Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, vol. 6(3), pp. 121-126.
Mulaik, S.A. (1971) The foundations of factor analysis, (New York, McGraw-Hill), cited
in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Muris, P.; Merckelbach, H.; Ollendick, T.; King, N.;
and Bogie, N. (2002) “Three traditional and three new childhood anxiety
questionnaires: their reliability and validity in a normal adolescent sample”,
Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 40(7), pp 753-772.
Muris, P.; Merckelbach, H.; Mayer, B.; van Brakel,
A.; Thissen, S.; Moulaert, V.; and Gadet, B. (1998) “The screen for Child
Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) and traditional childhood anxiety
measures”, Journal of Behaviour
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, vol. 29(4), pp.327-339.
Perrin, S.; and Last, C.G. (1992) “Do childhood
anxiety measures measure anxiety”, Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 20(6), pp. 567-578.
Pina, A.A.; Silverman, W.K.; Saavedra, L.M.; and
Weems, C.F. (2001) “An analysis of the RCMAS lie scale in a clinic sample of
anxious children”, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, vol. 15(5), pp. 443-457.
Reynolds, C.R. (1980) “Concurrent validity of What
I Think and Feel: the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”,
Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, vol. 48(6), pp. 774-775.
Reynolds, C.R. (1981) “Long-term stability of
scores on the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Perceptual and Motor
Skills, vol. 53(3), pp. 702.
Reynolds, C.R. (1985) “Multitrait validation of the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale for children of high intelligence”,
Psychological Reports, vol. 56(2), pp. 402
Reynolds, C.R. (1982) “Convergent and divergent
validity of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”,
Educational and Psychological
Measurement, vol. 42(4), pp. 1205-1212.
Reynolds,
C.R.; Bradley, M.; and Steele, C. (1980) “Preliminary norms and technical
data for use of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale with
kindergarten children”, Psychology in
the Schools, vol. 17, pp. 163-167, cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Reynolds, C.R. and Paget, K.D. (1981) “Factor
Analysis of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale for Blacks,
Whites, Males and Females with a National Normative Sample”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 49(3), pp.
352-359.
Reynolds, C.R. and Paget, K.D. (1983) “National
normative and reliability data for the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale”, School Psychology Review,
vol. 12(3), pp324-336.
Reynolds, C.R., Plake, B.S. and Harding, R.E. (1983)
“Item bias in the assessment of children’s anxiety: Race and Sex
interactions on items on the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, vol. 1, pp 135-142, cited in Gerard and
Reynolds, 1999.
Reynolds, C.R. and Richmond, B.O. (1978) “What I
think and Feel: A Revised Measure of Children’s Manifest Anxiety”, Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, vol.
6(2), pp. 271-280.
Reynolds, C.R. and Richmond, B.O. (1979) “Factor
Structure and Construct Validity of “what I think and Feel”: The Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal
of Personality Assessment, vol. 43, pp. 281-283.
Sarason, S.B.; Davidson, K.S.; Lighthall, F.F.;
Waite, R.R.; and Ruebush, B.K. (1960), Anxiety
in elementary school children, (New York, Wiley), cited in Reynolds and
Richmond , 1978.
Stark, K.D.; and Laurent, J. (2001) “Joint factor
analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory and the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 30(4), pp. 552-567.
Stellard, P.; Velleman, R.; Langsford, J. and
Baldwin, S. (2001) “Coping and psychological distress in children involved
in road traffic accidents”, British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 40, pp. 197-208.
Taylor, J.A. (1951) “The relationship of anxiety to
the conditioned eyelid response”, Journal
of Experimental Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 183-188, cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
White, K.S.; and Farrell, A.D. (2001) “Structure of
anxiety symptoms in urban children: Competing factor models of the revised
children’s manifest anxiety scale”, Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 69(2), pp. 333-337.
Wilson, D.; Chibaiwa, D.; Majoni, C.; Masukume, C.;
Nkoma, E. (2002) “Reliability and factorial validity of the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale in Zimbabwe”, Personality
and Individual Differences, vol. 11(4), pp. 365-369.
Wisniewski, J.J.; Jack, J.; Mulick, J.A.; Genshaft,
J.L.; and Coury, D.L. (1987) “Test-Retest reliability of the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Perceptual
and Motor Skills, vol. 65(1),
pp.67-70.
The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS)
“What I think and Feel”
Read each question carefully. Put a circle around the
word YES if you think it is true about you. Put a circle around the word NO if
you think it is not true about you
1.
I have trouble making
up my mind.
Yes / No
2.
I get nervous when
things do not go the right way for me. Yes / No
3.
Others seem to do
things easier than I can.
Yes / No
4.
I like everyone I
know.
Yes / No
5.
Often I have trouble
getting my breath.
Yes / No
6.
I worry a lot of the
time.
Yes / No
7.
I am afraid of a lot
of things.
Yes / No
8.
I am always kind.
Yes / No
9.
I get mad easily.
Yes / No
10.
I worry about what my
parents will say to me.
Yes / No
11.
I feel that others do
not like the way I do things.
Yes / No
12.
I always have good
manners.
Yes / No
13.
It is hard for me to
get to sleep at night.
Yes / No
14.
I worry about what
other people think about me.
Yes / No
15.
I feel alone even
when there are people with me.
Yes / No
16.
I am always good.
Yes / No
17.
Often I feel sick in
the stomach.
Yes / No
18.
My feelings get hurt
easily.
Yes / No
19.
My hands feel sweaty.
Yes / No
20.
I am always nice to
everyone.
Yes / No
21.
I am tired a lot.
Yes / No
22.
I worry about what is
going to happen.
Yes / No
23.
Other children are
happier than I am.
Yes / No
24.
I tell the truth
every single time.
Yes / No
25.
I have bad dreams.
Yes / No
26.
My feelings get hurt
easily when I am fussed at.
Yes / No
27.
I feel someone will
tell me I do things the wrong way.
Yes / No
28.
I never get angry.
Yes / No
29.
I wake up scared some
of the time.
Yes / No
30.
I worry when I go to
bed at night.
Yes / No
31.
It is hard for me to
keep my mind on my schoolwork.
Yes / No
32.
I never say things
that I shouldn’t.
Yes / No
33.
I wriggle in my seat
a lot.
Yes / No
34.
I am nervous.
Yes / No
35.
A lot of people are
against me.
Yes / No
36.
I never lie.
Yes / No
37.
I often worry about
something bad happening to me.
Yes / No
Above written by: Ms.
Sharon Gilroy
Reviewed and edited by: Dr.
Grant J. Devilly
| 
