1987
DOI: 10.2466/pms.1987.65.1.67
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Test-Retest Reliability of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale

Abstract: Test-retest reliabilities of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale over 1- and 5-wk. intervals were examined for two samples of students, 73 boys and 88 girls in regular sixth, seventh and eighth grade classrooms (11 yr. to 14 yr.). For raw scores the test-retest Pearson r was .88 (1-wk.) and .77 (5-wk.), indicating good reliability. For both samples there was a small difference between test (12.2 for 1-wk. sample; 11.4 for 5-wk. sample) and retest (11.2 for 1-wk. sample; 9.8 for 5-wk. sample) mean raw… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
32
0
1

Year Published

1998
1998
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These reliability estimates are in the excellent range. For the three anxiety subscale scores, Wisniewski, Mulick, Genshaft, and Coury (1987) found test score stability coefficients (1-week test-retest interval) in the adequate to good range (r s = .75 to .85). Strong evidence supporting the construct validity of the RCMAS test scores has been reported through factor analytic studies (see Reynolds & Paget, 1981;Reynolds & Richmond, 1979;Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985) and convergent and discriminant validity studies (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985).…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…These reliability estimates are in the excellent range. For the three anxiety subscale scores, Wisniewski, Mulick, Genshaft, and Coury (1987) found test score stability coefficients (1-week test-retest interval) in the adequate to good range (r s = .75 to .85). Strong evidence supporting the construct validity of the RCMAS test scores has been reported through factor analytic studies (see Reynolds & Paget, 1981;Reynolds & Richmond, 1979;Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985) and convergent and discriminant validity studies (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985).…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in children is good (α = 0.85) (Mayes et al, 2010). Test-retest reliability is good (Wisniewski et al 1987). Convergent validity with a global assessment of depression by two child psychiatrists has also been shown (0.92) (Poznanski and Mokros 1996).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Psychometric data suggest adequate reliability and validity (Wisniewski, Mulick, Genshaft, & Coury, 1987) including internal consistency ( a = .83, Reynolds & Richmond, 1985) and retest reliability ( r = .68; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). In addition, the RCMAS demonstrated good discriminant validity when identifying children with or without anxiety disorders (Perrin & Last, 1992; Seligman, Ollendick, Langley, & Baldacci, 2004).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%