Concurrent Validity of the Revised Anxiety Rating Scale by Cox - Essay Example

Article Analysis Concurrent Validity of the Revised Anxiety Rating Scale By Richard H Cox, Marshall Robb and William D. Russell Introduction The Anxiety Rating Scale (ARS) is the revised and shortened version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). Frequent use of the ARS suggested that minor modifications might improve the concurrent validity of the scale. Richard H. Cox & Marshall Robb conducted this study to test if the modifications actually improve the concurrent validity of the original ARS. They used 180 college-age intramural volleyball players. Consistent improvement is required in any process and knowledge field. This study was needed to improve the concurrent validity of the ARS scale. The hypothesis of the study states that improved accuracy is observed when slight modifications are made to the original ARS scale. The revision of the anxiety scale makes it more precise and more relevant in communicating to the athletes, so that they can better express their level of stress, anxiety and self-confidence. Article Summary The Anxiety Rating Scale ARS has been used frequently which led to its suggestion that some modifications might enhance the productivity regarding the concurrent validity of the instrument. Two revisions were made to the original ARS and its results were compared with the original ARS. The study used 180 college-age volleyball players for this study. The results indicated that the revision yielded the largest correlation with CSAI-2 subscales. The results were similar in the males where the revision 2 yielded the largest correlations connected with the cognitive and somatic anxiety, but not for self-confidence. Across genders the revision 2 resulted in the highest correlations for the three categories; cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence. Correlation coefficients were found to be .67, .69 and .75 respectively. The conclusion suggests that the revision to the original ARS model resulted in the highest level of concurrent validity when the participants were intramural volleyball players. Critical Analysis The journal article discusses a very important topic; measuring the results of revised anxiety test. The article is complete in the sense that it begins with an introduction that goes on into explaining the background, then turns to methodology and then concludes with the results. It gives the reasons why there is room for improvement in the ARS. The ARS had been associated satisfactorily with Krane’s (1994) revision of Mental Readiness Form (MRF-L). Previous studies show that ARS is moderately correlated with anxiety and self-confidence subcomponents of CDAI-2 (Cox, Reed & Robb, 1997). The outline is clear and states that 180 (N=180) college athletes (90 males and 90 females) took part in the study. For males, the average age was 19.8 years (standard deviation SD = 1.6) and for females the average age was 19.3 years (SD = 1.4). The article lists one table which is clearly mentioned in the discussion section of the article. The variables measured are the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), the ARS, and the two revised versions; ARS-1 and ARS-2. All the necessary data was collected to measure the variables. However, there is not sufficient information available earlier for a non-technical person. For instance, explaining that the Anxiety Rating Scale ARS is the shortened version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 is not sufficient. A person that does not understand the competitive state anxiety inventory will have no clue about the ARS. If such technicalities are included that are intended for only technical personnel, it should have been mentioned in the beginning of the journal article. This is important because a non-technical person should prepare before delving into the details trying to figure out the technical jargons. Stating that somatic state anxiety and self-confidence get accumulated in the ARS, as mentioned in the first paragraph, gives some sense as to what the anxiety measurement tools are about. The test design is highly targeted that helps achieve productive and precise results. In constructing statements designed to test cognitive state anxiety, self-confidence and somatic state anxiety, the ARS developers came up with a stepwise multiple regression process. The process identified the three best items from the previous version (CSAI-2) that represents each psychological state. These items were then molded into aggregate statements representing the cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence. Then the seven point scale, ranging from 1 to 7, allowed the athlete to portray her feelings just before the competition. This was the second revision which differed from the first one by a significant margin. For instance, the second revision was developed with a different frame of reference because the nine items for each subcomponent of CSAI-2 selected the three items that appeared to be related to cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety or self-confidence. The collective judgment of the researchers was a crucial aspect in this revision. The discussion section interprets the findings very objectively. It does not beat the data to confirm the thesis. For example there were some results that did not go according to the prediction as the original ARS showed better results compared to the revised version (especially for self-confidence). However, the overall results combined together show that ARS-2 is the best predictor of cognitive state anxiety, somatic state level and self-confidence. The conclusions drawn by the researchers are reasonable enough. Especially when the results do not state ARS-2 as the absolute measure because the construct validity of ARS-2 can be determined by establishing that the test participants that should differ on confidence and state anxiety, actually are different in those psychological aspects, which is measured by the ARS (Thomas & Nelson, 1996). I agree with their conclusion because there is sufficient evidence supporting the thesis statement. Moreover, the difference between the correlational coefficients is significant enough suggesting that ARS-2 is the better measure. Conclusion The journal article completely describes the process of revising the original ARS. It ticks all the checkmarks in avoiding prejudice. There are no skewed conclusions in the study. Including equal number of men and women was significant to measure the efficiency and relevance of the revised testing scale. I find the article very useful and the study was mandatory to conduct considering the reasonable suggestions for improvements. However, the introductory paragraph should have been more elaborate. It does not explain in easy terms what the article is about. The discussions and the results support the thesis of the article. The correlational coefficients observed in the study are sufficient enough to justify the revisions and promote the revised edition as a preferred version of testing the anxiety in college volleyball athletes. References Cox, R.H., Reed, C., & Robb, M. (1997). Comparative validity of the MRF-L and ARS competitive state anxiety rating scales for intramural athletes competing in six individual sports. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68 (1), Supplement, A-101 Cox, R. H., Robb, M., & Russell, W. D. (2000). Concurrent validity of the revised anxiety rating scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(4), 327-334. Krane, V. (1994). The mental readiness form as a measure of competitive state anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 189-202. Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1996). Research methods in physical activity (3rd edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Read More