The Modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: A Valid and Reliable Instrument for Use with Children

Abstract

Mathematics anxiety (MA) can be observed in children from primary school age into the teenage years and adulthood, but many MA rating scales are only suitable for use with adults or older adolescents. We have adapted one such rating scale, the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS), to be used with British children aged 8–13. In this study, we assess the scale's reliability, factor structure, and divergent validity. The modified AMAS (mAMAS) was administered to a very large (n = 1746) cohort of British children and adolescents. This large sample size meant that as well as conducting confirmatory factor analysis on the scale itself, we were also able to split the sample to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of items from the mAMAS alongside items from child test anxiety and general anxiety rating scales. Factor analysis of the mAMAS confirmed that it has the same underlying factor structure as the original AMAS, with subscales measuring anxiety about Learning and Evaluation in math. Furthermore, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the mAMAS alongside scales measuring test anxiety and general anxiety showed that mAMAS items cluster onto one factor (perceived to represent MA). The mAMAS provides a valid and reliable scale for measuring MA in children and adolescents, from a younger age than is possible with the original AMAS. Results from this study also suggest that MA is truly a unique construct, separate from both test anxiety and general anxiety, even in childhood.

Norms and validation of the online and paper-and-pencil versions of the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS) for Polish adolescents and adults

“…Similar indices of construct, convergent and discriminant validities were reported in other language versions, including Farsi (e.g., .61 correlation with statistics anxiety measure; Vahedi & Farrokhi, 2011), Italian (e.g., .57 correlation with test anxiety; Primi et al, 2014;.32 correlation with the physiological anxiety subscale; Caviola et al, 2017) and Polish (e.g., .33 correlation with trait anxiety; Cipora et al, 2015aCipora et al, , 2015b. Carey, Hill, et al (2017) in a large scale study by means of item-level factor analyses showed that (slightly modified) AMAS items loaded on a separate factor among other factors representing other types of anxiety (varied aspects of general anxiety and test anxiety).…”

“…Apart from the total score, AMAS comprises two scales: (1) anxiety related to learning math (Learning), and (2) anxiety related to being tested in math (Testing). This structure was confirmed in several samples using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (e.g., Hopko et al, 2003;Cipora et al, 2015aCipora et al, , 2015b Hill, et al, 2017). It was also used in studies on English speaking younger adolescents (11 years and older, however reliability estimates for this age group were not provided; Devine et al, 2012).…”

“…The evidence for its specificity comes from psychometric data both in adults (e.g., Ashcraft & Ridley, 2005), and in children (Carey, Hill, Devine, & Szűcs, 2017). Converging evidence comes also from physiological (e.g.…”

“…Reliability holds both for adults, high-schoolers (Cronbach's alpha for Italian high-schoolers ≥ .81; Primi et al, 2014 and ≥ .76 for Polish secondary-and high schoolers; Cipora et al, 2015b) and primary schoolers 8-11-year-olds (Cronbach's alpha in Italian sample ≥ .64; Caviola, Primi, Chiesi, & Mammarella, 2017). In a modified form AMAS was shown to be reliable for measuring math anxiety in British 8-13-year-olds (Cronbach's alpha > .74; ordinal alpha > .83; Carey, Hill, et al, 2017). It was also used in studies on English speaking younger adolescents (11 years and older, however reliability estimates for this age group were not provided; Devine et al, 2012).…”

“…Factor analyses indicate sufficient construct validity of the twofactor structure both in adults (e.g., Hopko et al, 2003;Cipora et al, 2015a) and adolescents (Carey, Hill, et al, 2017;Caviola et al, 2017;Cipora et al, 2015b). Similar indices of construct, convergent and discriminant validities were reported in other language versions, including Farsi (e.g., .61 correlation with statistics anxiety measure; Vahedi & Farrokhi, 2011), Italian (e.g., .57 correlation with test anxiety; Primi et al, 2014;.32 correlation with the physiological anxiety subscale; Caviola et al, 2017) and Polish (e.g., .33 correlation with trait anxiety; Cipora et al, 2015aCipora et al, , 2015b.…”