This article was downloaded by: [Kohn, Paul M.

]
On: 14 August 2008
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 901639579]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653663

The Beck Anxiety Inventory-Trait (BAIT): A Measure of Dispositional Anxiety

Not Contaminated by Dispositional Depression
Paul M. Kohn a; Ludmila Kantor a; Teresa L. DeCicco a; Aaron T. Beck b
a
Department of Psychology, York University, Canada b Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania,

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008

To cite this Article Kohn, Paul M., Kantor, Ludmila, DeCicco, Teresa L. and Beck, Aaron T.(2008)'The Beck Anxiety Inventory-Trait
(BAIT): A Measure of Dispositional Anxiety Not Contaminated by Dispositional Depression',Journal of Personality
Assessment,90:5,499 — 506
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00223890802248844
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248844

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 499–506, 2008
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223890802248844

The Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait (BAIT): A Measure

of Dispositional Anxiety Not Contaminated
by Dispositional Depression
PAUL M. KOHN,1 LUDMILA KANTOR,1 TERESA L. DECICCO,1 AND AARON T. BECK2

1
Department of Psychology, York University, Canada
2
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania

We describe development of the Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait (BAIT), a measure of trait anxiety. In Study 1 with 191 undergraduates, the BAIT
correlated higher with another trait-anxiety measure than with state anxiety and trait depressiveness and lower with depressiveness than the other
trait-anxiety measure did. In Study 2 (N s of 149 undergraduates initially and 107 at 3 weeks later), the BAIT demonstrated convergent validity
against the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988) and self-rated trait anxiety plus discriminant validity against
abstract curiosity. In Study 3 (N s of 161 undergraduates initially and 121 at 3 weeks later), the BAIT correlated more highly with another anxiety
measure than with depression, stress, positive affect, and negative affect. It also showed good internal consistency across studies and high stability
in Studies 2 and 3, higher than the BAI’s in Study 2. Factor analyses across studies all supported 2 factors, 1 Somatic and 1 Subjective.
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008

Spielberger (1966, 1972) has distinguished trait and state
anxiety. Trait anxiety is defined as an acquired disposition to
perceive a wide range of situations as threatening and to respond
to them anxiously. State anxiety, on the other hand, is viewed as
an acute anxious reaction that combines subjective apprehension
and arousal of the autonomic nervous system. This distinction
has received such widespread acceptance that the State–Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg,
& Jacobs, 1983) has become the most widely cited anxiety
measure in the psychological literature (Piotrowski, 1999).
Paradoxically, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck,
Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988), which ranked third in
Piotrowski’s (1999) analysis of citation frequencies for anxiety
measures, does not conform simply to the trait–state distinction.
In referring to symptoms of anxiety over the past week, it clearly
fails to qualify as a dispositional measure but also lacks the im-
mediacy of reference of a simple state measure. One would not,
for example, find it useful as a validity check for a short-term
experimental manipulation of anxiety, e.g., via apparently im-
minent exposure to painful electrical shocks or social evaluation
by others. The BAI might best be characterized as a measure of
prolonged state anxiety, which is obviously important to assess
in clinical contexts. Indeed, Beck et al. (1988) called the BAI
“an inventory for measuring clinical anxiety” (p. 893).
A major motive for developing the BAI was to offer an
anxiety measure that minimized contamination by depressive
content (Beck et al., 1988). Studies have shown several anxiety
measures, including the STAI, to be extremely highly correlated
with depression or even factorally indistinguishable from it
(e.g., Dahlquist, Czyzewski, & Jones, 1996; Dobson, 1985;
Endler, Cox, Parker, & Bagby, 1992). Indeed, Bieling, Antony,
and Swinson’s (1998) factor analysis of the trait subscale
Received October 9, 2003; Revised November 1, 2007.
Address correspondence to Paul M. Kohn, Department of Psychology, Fac-
ulty of Health, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3,
Canada; Email: pkohn@yorku.ca
499
of the STAI (STAIT) found distinct factors for anxiety and
depression. The evidence indicates that the BAI, in contrast, is
relatively free from contamination by depressive content (Beck
et al., 1988; Clark, Steer, & Beck, 1994; Enns, Cox, Parker, &
Guertin, 1998; Fydrich, Dowdall, & Chambless, 1992; Hewitt
& Norton, 1993; Osman, Kopper, Barrios, Osman, & Wade,
1997; Steer, Kumar, & Ranieri, 1995; Steer, Ranieri, Beck, &
Clark, 1993; Wetherell & Aréan, 1997).
The purpose of the work we report here is to introduce and
provide initial validation for a trait version of the Beck Anxiety
Inventory, the Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait (BAIT). Like the
STAIT, the BAIT assesses dispositional or trait anxiety rather
than immediate anxiety or prolonged recent anxiety; however,
the BAIT, like the BAI, is specifically designed to minimize
contamination by depressive content.
The BAIT uses the same items as the BAI but has instructions
and a response format designed for assessing a trait. Rather than
asking how severely people have suffered from various symp-
toms over the past week as the BAI does, the BAIT’s instructions
are as follows: “In general, how much are you bothered by each
of the following problems on a DAY-TO-DAY basis? Please
circle a number from 0 to 3 for each of the following items.”
The response format is as follows: “How you generally feel/0 =
rarely or never/1 = occasionally/2 = often/3 = almost always.”
(The slashes represent line breaks.)
One might question the value of basing a trait measure of anx-
iety on the BAI’s items because of the allegation that the BAI
measures primarily panic-disorder symptoms (Cox, Cohen, Di-
renfeld, & Swinson, 1996). We, however, concur with Steer and
Beck (1996) that panic disorder (PD) may simply represent a
more intense level of anxiety than, say, generalized anxiety dis-
order (GAD). Steer and Beck (1996) demonstrated that persons
with diagnoses of PD outscored their counterparts with GAD
not only on the BAI but also on the revised Hamilton Anxiety
Rating Scale (Riskind, Beck, Brown, & Steer, 1987). Further-
more, recent studies have indicated that the BAI distinguishes
persons with obsessive–compulsive disorder (Shin et al., 2004)
 500
and GAD (Wetherell & Gatz, 2005) from nonclinical controls
and predicts the clinician-rated severity of GAD (Hirai, Stanley,
& Novy, 2006). These findings are more consistent with Steer
and Beck’s (1996) position than with that of Cox et al.
We report three validation studies following. The first focuses
on construct validity and lack of contamination by depressive
content, whereas the second and third concern convergent and
discriminant validity. All three include factor analyses of re-
sponses to the BAIT to determine whether its structure follows
the definition of trait anxiety as the combined and positively
correlated dispositions for subjective apprehension and arousal
of the autonomic nervous system (Spielberger, 1966, 1972). In
other words, we expect, on theoretical grounds, two factors to
emerge, one Somatic and one Subjective, in keeping with many
results for the BAI (e.g., Beck et al., 1988; Hewitt & Norton,
1993; Kumar, Steer, & Beck, 1993; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995; Steer et al., 1995, 1993).
STUDY 1
This study intercorrelated the BAIT with an independent trait-
anxiety scale, Spielberger et al.’s (1983) STAIT, Form Y, plus
measures of state anxiety and trait depressiveness. We attempted
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
to establish that the BAIT measures trait anxiety rather than
state anxiety or dispositional depressiveness. As well, we tried
to show that the BAIT is less contaminated with depressive
content than is Form Y of the STAIT.
Accordingly, we offered the following hypotheses for
Study 1:
1. The BAIT should correlate higher with the STAIT than with
state anxiety as measured by Spielberger et al.’s (1983) State
Subscale of the STAI (STAIS), Form Y.
2. The BAIT should correlate higher with the STAIT than with
trait depressiveness as measured by the Depression Prone-
ness Rating Scale (DPRS; Zemore, Fisher, Garratt, & Miller,
1990).
3. The BAIT should correlate lower with the DPRS than the
STAIT does.
Method
The participants were 191 volunteering undergraduates at
York University, 76 men and 115 women. Their mean age was
22.18, SD = 4.61. They responded to a questionnaire consist-
ing of demographic questions plus the following measures: the
BAIT; the trait and state subscales of the STAI, Form Y (Spiel-
berger et al., 1983); and the DPRS (Zemore et al., 1990).
The STAIT (Spielberger et al., 1983) consists of 20 four-point
Likert items designed to measure trait anxiety. It has shown
high internal consistency and stability over time. In terms of
validity, it correlates positively with other measures of anxiety
and discriminates groups with clinical psychological problems
from nonclinical comparison groups.
The STAIS (Spielberger et al., 1983) has 20 four-point Likert
items intended to measure state anxiety. It shows substantially
less stability than the STAIT does and appropriate sensitivity
to real and imagined stress. It has also proven to discriminate
military recruits undergoing stressful training from student age-
mates under more routine levels of stress.
The DPRS (Zemore et al., 1990), designed to measure dis-
positional or trait depressiveness, consists of 13 items that
respondents answer on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1
KOHN, KANTOR, DECICCO, BECK
(much less often, much shorter, or much less deeply) to 9 (much
more often, much longer, or much more deeply). It has demon-
strated high internal consistency and stability as well as fac-
torial unidimensionality. It has also proven to predict scores
on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendel-
son, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) over a 9-week interval and to
distinguish undergraduates with and without a past history of
depressive episodes.
Results
The means, standard deviations, alpha reliabilities, and inter-
correlations for the BAIT, STAIT, STAIS, and DPRS appear in
Table 1. All measures showed adequate reliability, ranging from
.88 for the BAIT and STAIT to .93 for the DPRS.
All measures intercorrelated positively and significantly, .44
to .69, p < .005 in all cases. Hypotheses concerning the relative
magnitudes of correlations were tested with the z test for com-
paring “correlated correlations” (Steiger, 1980; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001, p. 146; i.e., for comparing the correlation of A and
B to the correlation of A and C in a single sample). In support
of Study 1, Hypothesis 1, the BAIT correlated more highly with
the STAIT, .66, than with the STAIS, .46, z = 4.17, p < .00006.
The BAIT also related more strongly to the STAIT than to the
DPRS, .50, z = 3.61, p = .0004 in accordance with Study 1,
Hypothesis 2. Finally, the BAIT correlated more weakly with
the DPRS than the STAIT did, .69, z = –3.78, p = .0002 in line
with Study 1, Hypothesis 3.
We factor analyzed responses to the BAIT after conducting a
parallel analysis (Glorfeld, 1995) to determine how many factors
to extract using O’Connor’s (2000a, 2000b) parallel.sps SPSS
syntax program. We obtained the 95th percentile values of the
eigenvalues for 1,000 random data sets based on principal com-
ponents analysis and compared them against the corresponding
eigenvalues for our data. The results, shown in Table 2 (along
with the corresponding results for Studies 2 and 3), clearly sup-
ported a two-factor solution.
We then conducted principal axis factoring on the polychoric
correlation matrix using Waller’s (n.d.) MicroFACT program,
followed by a direct oblimin rotation with a delta value of zero.
(We used polychoric correlation because of its appropriateness
for polytomous data, e.g., responses to a Likert-type scale.)
Fourteen items loaded substantially on Factor 1, .42 to .76. Of
these, 13 referred to Somatic indicators of anxiety: for example,
sweating (not due to heat) = .76; feeling hot = .74; and shaky =
.72. The one out-of-place item was fear of losing control, which
TABLE 1.—Study 1: Means, standard deviations, alpha reliabilities, and inter-
correlations for the BAIT, STAI–T, STAI–S, and DPRS.
1 2 3 4
1. BAIT — — — —
2. STAIT .66 — — —
3. STAIS .46 .65 — —
4. DPRS .50 .69 .44 —
M 14.97 43.46 42.92 55.49
SD 11.34 9.67 11.38 21.25
α .88 .88 .89 .93
Note. BAIT = Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait; STAIT = State–Trait Anxiety Inventory,
Trait subscale; STAIS = State–Trait Anxiety Inventory, State subscale; DPRS = Depression
Proneness Rating Scale. All correlations are significant, p < .005.
 BAIT
TABLE 2.—Results of parallel analysis for three data sets.
Study 1
Factor Actual Random Data 95th Percentile
1 10.13 1.76
2 1.76 1.61
3 1.24 1.51
4 1.12 1.42
5 0.88 1.35
6 0.84 1.28
Note. Bold font indicates the number of factors suggested by parallel analysis.
loaded least highly on Factor 1 (.42) and almost as highly on
Factor 2 (.38). Seven items had primary loadings on Factor 2,
.30 to .80, six of them being Subjective in content: for example,
fear of the worst happening = .80; scared = .77; and nervous
= .64. The misloading item was indigestion or discomfort in
abdomen, which loaded most weakly on Factor 2 (.30) and
almost as highly on Factor 1 (.29). The factor correlation was
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
.56.
Discussion
The BAIT showed good internal consistency and correlated
substantially with another measure of trait anxiety, the STAIT.
Moreover, it related more strongly to the STAIT than to measures
of state anxiety and trait depressiveness. Finally, the BAIT cor-
related less highly with trait depressiveness than did the STAIT.
These findings support the reliability, validity, and specificity of
the BAIT as a measure of trait anxiety and indicate that it is less
contaminated with trait depressiveness than is the STAIT.
The fact that the BAIT correlated substantially, .50, with the
DPRS, a measure of dispositional depressiveness, may well re-
flect a real relationship between these traits at the population
level. Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) assumed such a relation-
ship between anxiety and depression as prolonged states and
interestingly suggested .50 as an irreducible minimum value
for correlations between self-report measures of anxiety and
depression. Clark and Watson’s (1991) tripartite model, which
assumes that anxiety and depression are correlated because of
the common influence of negative affectivity on both, provides
a possible theoretical explanation.
The finding of two factors, one Somatic and one Subjective,
accords with Spielberger’s (1966, 1972) definition of anxiety.
In that sense, it supports the validity of the BAIT as a measure
of anxiety.
STUDY 2
Study 2 is designed to establish concurrent, predictive, and
discriminant validity for the BAIT as well as stability over time.
Accordingly, it entails administering on two occasions over a
3-week interval the BAIT, the BAI, and a global self-rating
for trait anxiety (SRTA) plus a measure of abstract curiosity
on the second occasion only. First, we expected the BAIT to
show greater stability than the BAI as befits the comparison
of measures of trait and prolonged state, respectively. Second,
we expected the BAIT to correlate positively with the BAI and
the SRTA, both concurrently and predictively, with the BAIT at
Time 1 predicting the BAI and the SRTA at Time 2. Third, we
501
Eigenvalues
Study 2 Study 3
Actual Random Data 95th Percentile Actual Random Data 95th Percentile
7.42 1.90 7.32 1.84
3.07 1.72 2.43 1.67
2.11 1.59 1.38 1.56
1.53 1.49 1.25 1.46
1.04 1.40 1.15 1.38
0.86 1.33 1.02 1.31
expected the BAIT to correlate more highly with the SRTA than
the BAI did because the SRTA is intended as a self-rating of trait
anxiety. Finally, because abstract curiosity appears theoretically
irrelevant to dispositional anxiety, we anticipated no substantial
correlation between the BAIT and the curiosity measure.
Method
Initially, 149 volunteering psychology undergraduates at two
Ontario universities participated. There were 24 men and 125
women with a mean age of 24.37, SD = 8.78 for the combined
sample. (A large female preponderance was characteristic of
enrollments in psychology courses at Ontario universities at the
time.) Because 42 initial participants were unavailable for their
second sessions, held 3 weeks after the first, the number par-
ticipating throughout was 107. They consisted of 15 men and
92 women with a mean age of 24.48, SD = 8.30. One person
yielded missing data for the second self-rating of anxiety, and 2
for the measure of abstract curiosity. (We report intercorrelations
for the largest N available using pairwise deletion of missing
data.) Participants responded to demographic items, the BAIT,
the BAI, and the SRTA in both sessions plus the abstract cu-
riosity measure in the second session. We used a self-generated
alphanumeric code to link individual participants’ data over time
despite anonymity.
The BAI (Beck et al., 1988) is a measure of prolonged state
anxiety that has respondents rating the severity of each of 21
anxiety symptoms over the past week on a 4-point scale ranging
from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Severely—I could barely stand it).
It has proven adequately reliable and has correlated positively
with other measures of anxiety and subjective distress in both
clinical populations (Beck et al., 1988; Fydrich et al., 1992;
Jolly, Wiesner, Wherry, Jolly, & Dykman, 1994; Osman et al.,
2002; Steer et al., 1995) and nonclinical populations (Borden,
Peterson, & Jackson, 1991; Osman, Barrios, Aukes, & Osman,
1993; Osman et al., 1997). We have previously cited evidence
for the BAI’s lack of contamination with depressive content.
The SRTA is a one-item self-rating for trait anxiety devised
specifically for this study. Respondents rated themselves on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at All Anxious) through 4
(Moderately Anxious) to 7 (Extremely Anxious.) The following
definition was used for dispositional or trait anxiety:
A dispositionally anxious person is one who experiences states of anx-
iety often, for prolonged periods of time, and intensely. States of anx-
iety combine worry, including thoughts of failure and self doubt, with
 502 KOHN, KANTOR, DECICCO, BECK

physical symptoms such as unsteady hands, rapid heartbeat, sweaty
palms, muscle tension, and “butterflies” in the stomach.
Our measure of abstract curiosity was the Internal Cognitive
Experiencing subscale (ICES) from Kohn and Annis’s (1975)
modification of Pearson’s (1970, 1971) Novelty Experiencing
Scale (NES) for Canadian use. The NES, in both its original
form and the presently used modification, asks respondents to
indicate whether they would expect to like or dislike each of
80 experiences or activities. There are four subscales of 20
items each, pertaining, respectively, to internal cognitive expe-
rience seeking (abstract curiosity), external cognitive experience
seeking (practical curiosity), external sensation seeking (physi-
cal thrill seeking), and internal sensation seeking (attraction to
unusual states of consciousness). Although one normally ad-
ministers the four subscales interspersed, we administered the
ICES alone because only it was germane to our purposes. This
subscale has shown adequate reliability (Kohn & Annis, 1975;
Pearson, 1970, 1971). It has also shown convergent validity with
the need for understanding subscale of Jackson’s (1967) Person-
ality Research Form; with self-ratings as intellectual, rational,
and reflective; and with interpersonal attraction to intellectual
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
The concurrent correlations of the BAIT and BAI were pos-
itive and substantial, .73 at Time 1 and .76 at Time 2. As well,
the BAIT at Time 1 predicted the BAI at Time 2, r = .75. The
BAIT also showed substantial concurrent correlation with the
SRTA, .57 at Time 1 and .60 at Time 2. Furthermore the BAIT
at Time 1 predicted the SRTA at Time 2, r = .61. Finally the
BAIT at both times (like the BAI and SRTA at both times) failed
to correlate significantly with ICES, .01 and .05 at Times 1 and
2, respectively.
At Time 1, the BAIT correlated with the SRTA at .57, slightly
but nonsignificantly more strongly than the BAI did at .52, z =
1.02, p = .3078. The difference in correlations with the SRTA
at Time 2 was even smaller, .60 for the BAIT and .59 for the
BAI, and, of course, was nonsignificant, z = .02, p = .984.
For Study 2 (and Study 3), we factor analyzed the BAIT
at Time 1 only. The reasons for this were sample attrition
from Time 1 to Time 2, potential loss of generalizability be-
cause of that, and loss of naiveté from previous testing. We
followed the same procedures for parallel analysis and factor
analysis as in Study 1. This time parallel analysis supported a
four-factor solution as shown in Table 2. However, the four-
factor solution was inadmissible because it produced an ultra-

people (Pearson, 1971) as well as discriminant validity against Heywood case and was difficult to interpret. An ultra-Heywood
measures of sensation seeking (Pearson, 1970). Kohn and Annis case is an instance of one or more negative error terms in a
(1975) showed the four subscales of their modification of the factor solution. The item, feeling of choking, had an error vari-
NES, including ICES, to be factorally distinguishable from one ance of –.27. Furthermore, the fourth factor consisted of this
another. item and another physiological item loading in opposite direc-
tions. Because this could well reflect overfactoring, we tried a
Results three-factor solution. This, however, again resulted in an ultra-
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorre- Heywood case for the same item that loaded alone on the third
lations for the BAIT, the BAI, and the SRTA at Times 1 and 2 factor.
plus ICES at Time 2 appear in Table 3. Alpha reliabilities for the Accordingly, we extracted two factors on a third run. This
BAIT and the BAI were satisfactory at both times, ranging from time, 13 items defined Factor 1 with loadings from .44 to .84.
.87 for the BAIT at Time 1 to .92 for the BAI at Time 2; how- All were Somatic in nature: for example, faint = .84; wobbly
ever, the Kuder–Richardson 20 reliability (Kuder & Richardson, legs = .79; and shaky = .75. The seven items on Factor 2 with
1937) for ICES at .69 was marginal. The test–retest reliability of substantial loadings (.52–.87) all had Subjective content: for
the BAIT over 3 weeks was satisfactory at .83. As expected, this example, scared = .87; fear of the worst happening = .78; and
substantially exceeded the stability of the BAI over this interval terrified = .78. The one item that failed to load on either factor
(.69). The difference between the two test–retest correlations was feeling of choking. The factor correlation was .32.
was, in fact, significant by Steiger’s (1980) test for the signifi-
cance of the difference between two correlations based on the
same cases but distinct pairs of variables, z = 3.09, p = .002. Discussion
The BAIT showed acceptable internal consistency and stabil-
ity. Notably, its stability was substantially higher than the BAI’s.
TABLE 3.—Study 2: Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliabil- This outcome was expected because a trait measure should show
ities for BAIT 1, BAIT 2, BAI 1, BAI 2, SRTA 1, SRTA 2, and ICES.
greater stability than a prolonged state measure pertaining to the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 same emotion.
As well, the BAIT showed the expected positive concurrent
1. BAIT 1 — — — — — — — and predictive correlations with the BAI and SRTA. It also failed
2. BAI 1 .73* — — — — — — to correlate concurrently or predictively with ICES as expected.
3. SRTA 1 .57* .52* — — — — — These findings reflect positively on the convergent and discrim-
4. BAIT 2 .83* .72* .50* — — — —
5. BAI 2 .75* .69* .51* .76* — — — inant validity of the BAIT.
6. SRTA 2 .61* .49* .78* .60* .59* — — The failure of the BAIT at both times to correlate significantly
7. ICES .01 .02 –.00 .05 .07 .01 — more strongly with the SRTA than the BAI did is contrary to the-
M 10.21 14.78 3.36 9.10 13.15 3.34 15.29 oretical expectation. Lack of reliability of a single-item measure
SD 7.50 9.55 1.42 7.97 10.08 1.45 2.98
α or KR–20 0.87 0.89 NA 0.90 0.92 NA 0.69
does not appear to explain this because the test–retest reliability
of the SRTA at .78 was quite high and not much lower than the
Note. BAIT 1 = Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait (BAIT), Time 1; BAIT 2 = BAIT, Time BAIT’s at .83. A possible explanation is that the trait–state dis-
2; BAI 1 = Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Time 1; BAI 2 = BAI, Time 2; SRTA 1 = Self- tinction was a bit too subtle for our undergraduate respondents.
Rated Trait Anxiety (SRTA), Time 1; SRTA 2 = SRTA, Time 2; ICES = Internal Cognitive
Experiencing subscale of the Novelty Experiencing Scale; KR–20 = Kuder–Richardson The fact that our definition of trait anxiety incorporated the con-
20; NA = not applicable (to single-item self-rating). *p < .01. cept of state anxiety, defining trait anxiety as a predisposition
 BAIT 503

to experience states of anxiety often, protractedly and intensely,
may have aggravated the problem. (See the Method section of
Study 2 for the exact definition used.)
Furthermore, albeit with some complication, we replicated
the finding of two factors reflecting Somatic and Subjective
content from Study 1. Again, this supports the validity of the
BAIT in fitting Spielberger’s (1966, 1972) definition of anxiety
in terms of these components.
STUDY 3
We conducted Study 3 in response to two logically possible
criticisms of the preceding studies: first, that the high test–retest
reliability of the BAIT partly reflected inflation by its concurrent
administration with the BAI in both waves of Study 2 because
of sensitization by the two tests’ distinctive instructions and
response format (e.g., “how you generally feel” for the BAIT
vs. “the PAST WEEK” for the BAI); and second, that more
construct validation was needed. Accordingly, we again admin-
istered the BAIT twice over a 3-week interval, this time unac-
companied by the BAI both times. Participants also responded to
measures for prolonged states of anxiety, depression, and stress
plus general positive and general negative affect at Time 1.
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
more strongly with the BDI. Furthermore, factor analysis, both
exploratory and confirmatory, supported the distinctions among
the three DASS subscales.
The PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) consists of 20 adjectives for
each of which respondents indicate how much they have been
feeling that way on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very
slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). A total of 10 adjectives
refer to positive and 10 to negative affective states. Although
the PANAS is open to use with different time references, we
used it in relation to how people felt generally or on the aver-
age. Internal-consistency reliabilities across different time ref-
erences have ranged from .88 to .90 for the Positive Affect Scale
(PA) and from .84 to .87 for the Negative Affect Scale (NA).
NA has proven to correlate positively with measures of general
psychiatric distress, depression, and state anxiety, whereas PA
correlated negatively with depression. Correlations between NA
and PA turned out modestly negative.
Results
The means, standard deviations, alpha reliabilities, and in-
tercorrelations for all measures appear in Table 4. All reliabili-

We tested the following hypotheses: ties were satisfactory, ranging from .85 for DASS–A to .93 for
DASS–D.
1. The BAIT at Time 1 should correlate more highly with con- As predicted in Study 3, Hypothesis 1, the BAIT at Time 1
currently measured prolonged state anxiety than with con- correlated more strongly with DASS–A, .74, than with DASS–
currently measured prolonged states of depression and stress S, .64; DASS–D, .55; NA, .64; and PA, –.19. The predicted
and general positive and general negative affectivity. differences in correlations were significant in all four cases:
2. The BAIT at Time 1 should correlate more highly with con- z = 2.36, p = .0182; z = 4.07, p < .00006; z = 2.16, p =
currently measured negative affectivity than with concur- .0308; and z = 6.70, p < .00006, respectively. (In comparing
rently measured positive affectivity. the correlation of the BAIT and DASS–A to that of the BAIT
3. The test–retest correlation for the BAIT in this study should and PA, we used the absolute values of both correlations.) In line
not differ significantly from that in Study 2. with Study 3, Hypothesis 2, the BAIT’s correlation with NA, .64,
4. The test–retest correlation for the BAIT in this study should exceeded its correlation with PA, –.19, z = 6.70, p < .00006.
significantly exceed the test–retest correlation of the BAI in (Again, our comparison was based on the absolute values of
Study 2. both correlations.)
As Table 4 shows, the test–retest reliability of the BAIT over
Method 3 weeks was .79. To test Study 3, Hypothesis 3 that this value
The participants at Time 1 were 161 volunteering undergrad- was not significantly lower than the .83 found in Study 2 (which
uates from psychology courses at Trent University, 22 men and admittedly means testing the null) requires a test of significance
139 women. (The large female preponderance was characteristic of the difference between two correlations of the same variables
of psychology courses at Ontario universities at the time.) Their across two independent samples (Ferguson & Takane, 1989,
mean age was 25.60 (SD = 8.69). Of these, 121, consisting of p. 208). On applying this test to the difference between test–
20 men and 101 women, also participated at Time 2. Their mean
age was 25.78 (SD = 8.63). TABLE 4.—Study 3: Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrela-
Participants responded to the following in the indicated order tions for BAIT1, BAIT 2, DASS–A, DASS–S, DASS–D, NA, and PA.
at Time 1: demographic items (gender and age), a self-generated
matching code, the BAIT, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), and the Positive and
Negative Affect Scales time-referenced to how people gener- 1. BAIT 1 — — — — — — —
2. BAIT 2 .79** — — — — — —
ally felt (PANAS–G; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). They 3. DASS–A .74** .75** — — — — —
again provided the self-generated code and answered the BAIT 4. DASS–S .64** .68** .68** — — — —
3 weeks later. 5. DASS–D .55** .59** .61** .65** — — —
The DASS consists of 42 items measured on a 4-point Likert 6. NA .64** .68** .63** .66** .56** — —
7. PA −.19* −.28** –.13 –.14 –.31** –.25** —
scale ranging from 0 (Did not apply to me at all) to 3 (Applied M 13.28 10.32 5.61 12.83 7.30 17.52 32.94
to me very much, or most of the time), with 14 items devoted to SD 7.77 8.18 5.84 8.79 7.64 6.10 7.31
each of anxiety (DASS–A), Depression (DASS–D), and stress α .86 .90 .85 .92 .93 .87 .90
(DASS–S). These scales have shown excellent reliability: .81 for
DASS–A, .91 for DASS–D, and .89 for DASS–S. Lovibond and Note. BAIT 1 = Beck Anxiety Inventory–Trait (BAIT), Time 1; BAIT 2 = BAIT,
Time 2; DASS–A = Depression Anxiety Stress scales–Anxiety; DASS–S = DASS–Stress;
Lovibond (1995) showed that DASS–A correlated more highly DASS–D = DASS–Depression; NA = Negative Affect Scale; PA = Positive Affect Scale.
with the BAI than with the BDI, whereas DASS–D correlated *p < .05. **p < .01.
 504
retest reliabilities in Studies 2 and 3, we found the difference
nonsignificant, z = .98, p = .327.
To test Study 3, Hypothesis 4, that the test–retest reliability of
the BAIT in Study 3 exceeds that of the BAI in Study 2, which
compares correlations between two different pairs of variables in
two independent samples, we used Jaccard and Becker’s (2002,
pp. 423–424) method of testing the null hypothesis that the
value of r does not differ from some value other than zero. We
found that the BAIT’s test–retest correlation in Study 3 (.79)
significantly exceeded the .69 test–retest correlation of the BAI
in Study 2, z = 2.40, p = .0164.
For Study 3, we factor analyzed the Time 1 data for the BAIT.
This time parallel analysis supported a two-factor solution, as
shown in Table 2.
Most of the 15 items loading primarily on Factor 1, .36 to
.80, were Somatic in content: for example, shaky = .80; hands
trembling = .75; and unsteady = .72. The sole out-of-place item
for Factor 1 was unable to relax, which, at .36, had the second
lowest loading on Factor 1. All 6 items with primary loadings
on Factor 2, .55 to .83, had Subjective content: for example,
scared = .83; terrified = .82; and fear of the worst happening =
.76. The factor correlation was .36.
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
Discussion
The internal consistency of the BAIT, .86 at Time 1 and .90
at Time 2, again proved satisfactory. Its test–retest reliability
at .79, although lower than the corresponding value in Study
2, .83, was not significantly lower. Furthermore, the Study 3
value for the BAIT remained significantly higher than the test–
retest reliability of the BAI in Study 2, .69. It is possible that
the latter value might be artificially low because responding to
both the BAIT and the BAI in both waves of Study 2 might have
inordinately sensitized respondents to the time reference in each
set of instructions, resulting in a contrast effect. We would point
out, however, that there was no contrast effect in evidence for
the BAIT and that the test–retest reliability of the BAI in Study
2 was well within the range of values that have been reported
in reviews of the BAI’s psychometric characteristics (de Ayala,
Vonderharr-Carlson, & Kim, 2005; Steer & Beck, 1997; Wilson,
Chambless, & de Beurs, 2004).
In accordance with Study 3, Hypothesis 1, the BAIT corre-
lated more highly with a concurrent measure of anxiety than with
concurrent measures of depression, stress, negative affectivity,
and positive affectivity. Furthermore, in support of Study 3, Hy-
pothesis 2, its correlation with negative affectivity exceeded the
absolute value of its correlation with positive affectivity.
As in Studies 1 and 2, factor analysis again supported
two positively related factors, one Somatic and one Subjec-
tive. Once more, we note that this accords with Spielberger’s
(1966, 1972) definition of anxiety in terms of these two
conceptualcomponents.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our objective was to provide initial validation data on the
BAIT, an adaptation of the BAI designed to assess dispositional
or trait anxiety with minimal contamination by depressive con-
tent. The BAIT showed satisfactory internal consistency in all
three studies we reported here and acceptable stability in the
second and third. Notably, its stability in Studies 2 and 3 was
significantly higher than the BAI’s in Study 2, as one would
KOHN, KANTOR, DECICCO, BECK
expect when comparing a trait measure, the BAIT, with a pro-
longed state measure, the BAI, of the same emotion.
Evidence of concurrent validity comes from the BAIT’s sub-
stantial positive synchronous correlations with other indexes
of anxiety, the STAIT and STAIS in Study 1, the BAI and
SRTA in Study 2, and DASS–A in Study 3. The BAIT also
showed good predictive validity over a 3-week interval for the
BAI and SRTA in Study 2. In Study 1, moreover, we demon-
strated that the BAIT’s correlation with the STAIT was sig-
nificantly higher than its correlations with measures of state
anxiety and trait depressiveness. Finally, in Study 3, we showed
the BAIT correlated more strongly with concurrently measured
anxiety than with concurrently measured depression, stress, neg-
ative affectivity, and positive affectivity. These findings col-
lectively support the specificity of the BAIT as a measure of
trait anxiety. Furthermore, the finding that the BAIT corre-
lated significantly lower than the STAIT did with the DPRS
in Study 1 supports the BAIT’s relative lack of contamina-
tion with trait-depressive content. Finally the BAIT’s failure to
correlate significantly with ICES demonstrates its discriminant
validity.
Factor analysis of three data sets, Study 1, Study 2 Time 1, and
Study 3 Time 1, consistently supported a two-factor solution.
The fact that the two factors of that model, one Somatic and one
Subjective, accord with the two key elements of common defi-
nitions of anxiety (e.g., Spielberger, 1966, 1972) is theoretically
satisfying. It also resonates with numerous factor analyses of the
BAI (Beck et al., 1988; Hewitt & Norton, 1993; Kumar et al.,
1993; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Steer et al., 1995, 1993),
even with translations of the BAI for speakers of Spanish (Con-
treras, Fernandez, Malcarne, Ingram, & Vaccarino, 2004) and
Turkish (Ulusoy, Sahin, & Erkmen, 1998). However, it is also
inconsistent with other finding of four factors (Beck & Steer,
1991; Enns et al., 1998; Osman et al., 1993, 2002, 1997), five
factors (Borden et al., 1991), and even six factors (Morin et al.,
1999). In any event, because these are the first factor-analytic
findings on the BAIT, its replicated two-factor structure will
serve as a benchmark for future studies.
A major limitation of this work is the absence of validity
data involving clinical populations. This, however, can be easily
remedied in further research. The BAI was validated initially
with clinical populations (Beck et al., 1988), but later work has
established its validity with nonclinical populations (Borden et
al., 1991; Creamer, Foran, & Bell, 1995; Osman et al., 1993,
1997). The opposite sequence can be followed with the BAIT.
Another evident weakness of this study was the modesty of its
sample sizes, especially so for men.
A useful application of the BAIT in clinical contexts might
be to use it in conjunction with the BAI to help distinguish
anxiety that is predominantly reactive from that which is pre-
dominantly endogenous. Presumably, reactively anxious per-
sons should score high on the BAI but low on the BAIT, whereas
endogenously anxious persons should score high on both. One
would expect endogenously anxious persons to require longer
term, more intensive treatment. Also, spontaneous remissions,
notably lasting ones, should be less frequent with the endoge-
nously anxious.
In both clinical and research contexts, the BAIT may prove
to be the kind of trait anxiety measure that psychologists have
long sought: one that measures trait anxiety uncontaminated by
depressive item-content. It seems likely that the two dispositions
 BAIT
are substantially correlated, as Lovibond and Lovibond (1995)
maintained was true for anxiety and depression as prolonged
states; however, there is no value in inflating our estimates of
such relations through psychometric contamination. The BAIT
appears to offer the happy alternative of measuring dispositional
anxiety relatively uncontaminated with depressive content.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Dr.
Robert Steer on an earlier draft of this article and the statistical
advice of Drs. Brian O’Connor and Niels Waller. Dr. Teresa L.
DeCicco is now at Trent University.
REFERENCES
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for
measuring clinical Anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893–897.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1991). Relationships between the Beck Anxiety
Inventory and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale with anxious outpatients.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 5, 213–223.
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961).
An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4,
561–571.
Bieling, P. J., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). The State–Trait Anx-
iety Inventory, Trait version: Structure and content re-examined. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 36, 777–778.
Borden, J. W., Peterson, D. R., & Jackson, E. A. (1991). The Beck Anxiety
Inventory in nonclinical samples: Initial psychometric properties. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 345–356.
Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (1994). Common and specific dimen-
sions of self-reported anxiety and depression: Implications for the cognitive
and tripartite models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 645–564.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991).Tripartite model of anxiety and depression:
Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 100, 316–336.
Contreras, S., Fernandez, S., Malcarne, V. L., Ingram, R. E., & Vaccarino,
V. R. (2004). Reliability and validity of the Beck Depression and Anxiety
Inventories in Caucasian Americans and Latinos. Hispanic Journal of the
Behavioral Sciences, 26, 446–462.
Cox, B. J., Cohen, E., Direnfeld, D., & Swinson, R. P. (1996). Does the Beck
Anxiety Inventory measure anything beyond panic attack symptoms? Be-
haviour Research and Therapy, 34, 949–954.
Creamer, M., Foran, J., & Bell, R. (1995). The Beck Anxiety Inventory in a
non-clinical sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 477–485.
Dahlquist, L. M., Czyzewski, D. I., & Jones, C. L. (1996). Parents of chil-
dren with cancer: A longitudinal study of emotional distress, coping style,
and marital adjustment two and twenty months after diagnosis. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 21, 541–554.
de Ayala, R. J., Vonderharr-Carlson, D. J., & Kim, D. (2005). Assessing the reli-
ability of the Beck Anxiety Inventory scores. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 65, 742–756.
Dobson, K. S. (1985). An analysis of anxiety and depression scales. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 522–527.
Endler, N.S., Cox, B. J., Parker, J. D. A., & Bagby, R. M. (1992). Self-reports
of depression and state-trait anxiety: Evidence for differential assessment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 832–838.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Parker, J. D. A., & Guertin, J. E. (1998). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Beck Anxiety and Depression Inventories in patients
with major depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 47, 195–200.
Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and
education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fydrich, T., Dowdall, D., & Chambless, D. L. (1992). Reliability and validity
of the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 6, 55–61.
505
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis method-
ology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 55, 377–393.
Hewitt, P. L., & Norton, G. R. (1993). The Beck Anxiety Inventory: A psycho-
metric analysis. Psychological Assessment, 5, 408–412.
Hirai, M., Stanley, M. A., & Novy, D. M. (2006). Generalized anxiety disorder
in Hispanics: Symptom characteristics and prediction of severity. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 49–56.
Jaccard, J., & Becker, M. A. (2002). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jackson, D. (1967). Personality research form. Goshen, NY: Research Psychol-
ogist Press.
Jolly, J. B., Wiesner, D. C., Wherry, J. N., Jolly, J. M., & Dykman, R. A.
(1994). Gender and the comparison of self and observer ratings of anxiety
and depression in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1284–1288.
Kohn, P. M., & Annis, H. M. (1975). Validity data on a modified version of
Pearson’s Novelty Experiencing Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 7, 274–278.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test
reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160.
Kumar, G., Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (1993). Factor structure of the Beck
Anxiety Inventory with adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 6, 125–131.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional
states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress scales (DASS) with the
Beck Depression and Anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
33, 335–343.
Morin, C. M., Landreville, P., Colecchi, C., McDonald, K., Stone, J., & Ling,
W. (1999). The Beck Anxiety Inventory: Psychometric properties with older
adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 5, 19–29.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000a). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number
of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior
Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 32, 396–402.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000b). SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for de-
termining the number of components and factors using parallel anal-
ysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/∼boconno2/nfactors.html.
Osman, A., Barrios, F. X., Aukes, D., & Osman, J. R. (1993). The Beck Anxiety
Inventory: Psychometric properties in a community population. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 287–297.
Osman, A., Hoffman, J., Barrios, F. X., Kopper, B. A., Breitenstein, J. L., &
Hahn, S. K. (2002). Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Beck
Anxiety Inventory in adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58, 443–456.
Osman, A., Kopper, B. A., Barrios, F. X., Osman, J. R., & Wade, T. (1997).
The Beck Anxiety Inventory: Reexamination of structure and psychometric
properties. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–14.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specified measures of
novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 199–
204.
Pearson, P. H. (1971). Differential relationships between global and specified
measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
37, 23–30.
Piotrowski, C. (1999). The status of the Beck Anxiety Inventory in contemporary
research. Psychological Reports, 85, 261–262.
Riskind, J. H., Beck, A. T., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Taking the measure
of anxiety and depression: Validity of reconstructed Hamilton scales. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 474–479.
Shin, M. S., Park, S. J., Kim, M. S., Lee, Y. H., Ha, T. H., & Kwon, J. S.
(2004). Deficits of organizational strategy and visual memory in obsessive–
compulsive disorder. Neuropsychology, 18, 665–672.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–20). New York: Academic.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (pp. 23–49). New York:
Academic.
 506
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A.
(1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo-Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (1996). Generalized anxiety and panic disorders:
Response to Cox, Cohen, Direnfeld, and Swinson (1996). Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 34, 955–957.
Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (1997). Beck Anxiety Inventory. In C. P. Zalaquett
& R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 23–40).
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Steer, R. A., Kumar, G., & Ranieri, W. F. (1995). Use of the Beck Anxiety
Inventory with adolescent psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Reports,
76, 459–465.
Steer, R. A., Ranieri, W. F., Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1993). Further evidence
for the validity of the Beck Anxiety Inventory with psychiatric outpatients.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 195–205.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ulusoy, M., Sahin, N. H., & Erkmen, H. (1998). Turkish version of the Beck
Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 12, 153–162.
Downloaded By: [Kohn, Paul M.] At: 21:44 14 August 2008
KOHN, KANTOR, DECICCO, BECK
Waller, N. G. (n.d.). Micro FACT for Windows—Factor analysis for dichoto-
mous and ordered polytomous response data. Retrieved January 29, 2006,
from http://www.assess.com/Software/MicroFACT.htm# Demo
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wetherell, J. L., & Aréan, P. A. (1997). Psychometric evaluation of the Beck
Anxiety Inventory with older medical patients. Psychological Assessment, 9,
136–144.
Wetherell, J. L., & Gatz, M. (2005). The Beck Anxiety Inventory in older
adults with generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 27, 17–24.
Wilson, K. A., Chambless, D. L., & de Beurs, E. (2004). Beck Anxi-
ety Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological test-
ing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment: Volume 3. Instru-
ments for adults (3rd ed., pp. 399–419). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Zemore, R., Fischer, D. G., Garratt, L. S., & Miller, C. (1990) The Depression
Proneness Rating Scale: Reliability, validity and factor structure. Current
Psychology: Research and Reviews, 9, 255–263.