Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of Math Anxiety Scale with Different Scale Formats
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.11.10Keywords:
Math anxiety scale, Reliability, Scale formats, ValidityAbstract
The study compared the reliability and validity of the Math Anxiety Scale (MAS) in different scale formats: 5-point scale, checklist, visual analog scale, and 4-point scale. Specifically, it sought to assess the student’s level of math anxiety, determine the reliability coefficients of each scale format, test the concurrent validity against the standardized scale, and compare the extracted factors with the original MAS. The respondents were 67 students, a total enumeration from two sections of a laboratory school in La Trinidad, Benguet. The standardized MAS (5-point scale) was adopted and transformed into a checklist, visual analog scale, and 4-point scale. The tests were administered at three-day intervals. The findings indicated that students experienced a moderate level of math anxiety, with cognitive dimension substantially contributing to their anxiety. The visual analog scale demonstrated the highest reliability coefficient, followed by the 4-point scale, checklist, and 5-point scale, respectively. Concurrent validity analysis revealed that the visual analog scale exhibited the highest concurrent validity, followed by the 4-point scale and checklist, respectively. Based on the results, the majority of the students are experiencing a moderate level of math anxiety. Among the four scale formats, the visual analog scale provides the most reliable and valid responses to be used in measuring math anxiety among junior high school students with ages ranging from 11 to 13 years old.
Downloads
References
Aarnos, E. & Perkkila, P. (2012). Early signs of mathematics anxiety?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 1495-1499. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.328
Ahearn E. P. (1997). The use of visual analog scales in mood disorders: a critical re-view. Journal of Psychiatric Re-search, 31(5), 569–579. doi:10.1016/s0022-3956(97)00029-0
Alwin, D. F., Baumgartner, E. M., & Beattie, B. A. (2018). Number of response categories and reliability in attitude measure-ment. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 6(2), 212-239.
Ashcraft, M.H., & Ridley, K.S. (2005). Math anx-iety and its cognitive consequences: A tu-torial review. In J.I.D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (pp. 315-327). Psychology Press.
Bradford, W.C. (2011). Reaching the Visual Learner: Teaching Property Through Art. Social Science Research Network 11.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliabil-ity and validity assessment. Sage Univer-sity Paper 17. Beverly Hills: Sage Publica-tions.
Chang, H., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). The math anxiety-math performance link and its re-lation to individual and environmental factors: A review of current behavioral and psychophysiological re-search. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 10, 33-38. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.011
Child, D. (1975). The essentials of factor analy-sis. Billing & Sons Ltd., Guilford and Lon-don.
Cipora, K., & Nuerk, H.C. (2019). Different ways to measure math anxiety. In I.C. Mammarella, S. Caviola, & A. Dowker (Eds.), Mathematics anxiety: What is known and what is still to be understood (pp 20-41). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.4324/9780429199981-2
Clarke, P. R. F. (1964). Reliability and sensitivi-ty in the self-assessment of well-being. Bulletin of the British Psychologi-cal Society, 17, 55.
Dreger, R.M. & Aiken, L.R. (1957). The identi-fication of number anxiety in a college population. Journal of Educational Psy-chology 48(6), 344-351. doi:10.1037/h0045894
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Furner, J. M. & Higgins, C. (2019). Empowering teacher leadership to address math anxi-ety in today’s schools. Transformations 5(1). Retrieved at https://nsuworks.nova.edu/transformations/vol5/iss1/2
Gaskin, C., Lambert, S., Bowe, S., & Orellana, L. (2017). Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: Implications for the 12-item World Health Organiza-tion disability assessment schedule 2.0. BMC Medical Research Methodology 17(40). doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0309-5
Gierl, M.J., & Bisanz, J. (1995). Anxieties and attitudes related to mathematics in grades 3 and 6. Journal of Experimental Education 63(2), 139-158. doi:10.1080/00220973.1995.9943818
Gough. M.F. (1954). Why failures in mathemat-ics? Mathemaphobia: Causes and treat-ments. Journal of Education Strategies, Is-sues and Ideas 28(5), 290-294. doi:10.1080/00098655.1954.11476830
Hasson, D. & Arnetz, B. (2005). Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Interna-tional Electronic Journal of Health Educa-tion 2, 178-192.
Hopko, D.R. et al. (2003). The abbreviated math anxiety scale (AMAS): Construction, validity, and reliability. SAGE Journals 10(2). doi:10.1177/107319113010002008
Huck, S. (2007). Reform in statistical educa-tion. Psychology in the Schools 44. 527 - 533. doi:10.1002/pits.20244
Ilgen, J. S., Hatala, R. & Cook. D.A. (2015). A systematic review of validity evidence for checklist versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Medical Education 42(2), 161-173. doi:10.1111/medu.12621
Jacoby, J., & Matell, M. (1971). Three-point Likert scales are good enough. SAGE Journals 8(4). doi:10.1177/002224377100800414
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of elec-tronic computers to factor analysis. Edu-cational and Psychological Measurement 20(1), 141-151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116
Kuhlmann, T., Dantlgraber, M. & Reips, UD. Investigating measurement equivalence of visual analogue scales and Likert-type scales in Internet-based personality ques-tionnaires. Behav Res 49, 2173–2181 (2017). doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0850-x
Legg, A., & Locker, L. (2009). Math perfor-mance and its relationship to math anxie-ty and metacognition. North American Journal of Psychology(11), 471-485.
Morris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1970). Rela-tionship of cognitive and emotional com-ponents of test anxiety to physiological arousal and academic perfor-mance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(3), 332–337. doi:10.1037/h0030132
Nuñez-Peña, M.I., Guilera, G., & Suarez Pelli-cioni, M. (2014). The single-item math anxiety scale: An alternative way of measuring mathematical anxiety. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32, 306-317. doi:10.1177/0734282913508528
Osteras, N., Gulbrandsen, P., Garratt, A., Benth, J., Dahl, F. Natvig, B., & Brage, S. (2008). A randomized comparison of a four- and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian function assessment scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6(14). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-14
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pizzie, R. (2021). Mind, Brain, and Math Anxie-ty. In: Danesi, M. (eds) Handbook of Cog-nitive Mathematics. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_29-1
Plake, B.S., & Parker, C.S. (1982). The devel-opment and validation of a revised ver-sion of the mathematics anxiety rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 42(2), 551-557. doi:10.1177/001316448204200218
Rezende, N & Medeiros, D. (2022). How rating scales influence responses’ reliability, ex-treme points, middle point and respond-ent’s preferences. Journal of Business Re-search (138), 266-274. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.031
Richardson, F.C. & Suinn, R.M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psy-chometric data. Journal of Counseling
Psychology 19(6), 551-554. doi:10.1037/h0033456
Rubinsten, O., & Tannock, R. (2010). Mathe-matics anxiety in children with develop-mental dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions: BBF 6(46). doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-46
Scarpello, G. (2007). Helping students get past math anxiety. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers 82.
Shahid, A., Wilkinson, K., Marcu, S., & Shapiro, C. (2011). Visual analogue scale to evalu-ate fatigue severity (VAS-F). STOP, THAT and one hundred other sleep scales. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9893-4_100
Suinn, R.M., & Edwards, R. (1982). The meas-urement of mathematics anxiety: The mathematics anxiety rating scale for ado-lescents – MARS-A. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38(3), 576-580. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198207)38:3<576::AID-JCLP2270380317>3.0.CO;2-V
Suinn, R.M., Taylor, S., & Edwards, R. (1988). Suinn mathematics anxiety rating scale for elementary school students (MARS-E): Psychometric and Normative Data. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment 48(4), 979-986. doi:10.117/0013164488484013
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Ac-ademic Research in Management 5(3), 28-36. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3205040
Udil, P. A., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Riyadi (2017). Profile of mathematics anxiety of 7th graders. AIP Conference Proceedings 1868(1). doi:10.1063/1.4995144
Vargas, Rafael. (2021). A literature review on math anxiety and learning mathematics: A general overview. Journal of Educa-tional Research and Reviews (9), 102-108. doi:10.33495/jerr_v9i5.21.112
Zakariya, Y.F. (2018). Development of mathe-matics anxiety scale: Factor analysis as a determinant of subcategories. Journal of Pedagogical Research 2(2), 135-144.
Zhang, J., Zhao, N. & Kong, Q.P. (2019). The Relationship Between Math Anxiety and Math Performance: A Meta-Analytic In-vestigation. Frontiers in Psychology 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01613
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access).
