See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228843362

Validation of the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scale and EMAS Social

Anxiety Scales (EMAS and EMAS-SAS) on the Romanian population

Article · July 2002

CITATIONS READS

3 333

3 authors:

Ştefania Miclea Amalia Ciuca

Cognitrom Ltd Babeş-Bolyai University
9 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Monica Albu
Institutul de Istorie George Baritiu
13 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amalia Ciuca on 06 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal
Copyright © 2009 Romanian Association for Cognitive Science. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1224-8398
Volume XIII, No. 2 (June), 147-164

VALIDATION OF THE ENDLER

MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANXIETY SCALES AND EMAS
SOCIAL ANXIETY SCALES (EMAS AND EMAS-SAS)
ON THE ROMANIAN POPULATION
Ştefania MICLEA*1, Amalia CIUCA1,
Monica ALBU1,2
1
Cognitrom, LTD, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
The Department of Social-Human Research - Institute of History “G. Bariţiu”,
The Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

ABSTRACT
This study reports the validation of the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales
(EMAS) and the EMAS Social Anxiety Scales (EMAS-SAS) on the Romanian
population. Psychometric characteristics were measured in a non-clinical group of
786 adolescents and adults from different parts of the country. To investigate the
factor structure of the EMAS and EMAS-SAS, factor analyses were conducted. The
results showed that the multidimensional structure of the EMAS and EMAS-SAS was
tenable and they indicate that the EMAS and EMAS-SAS is a valid tool for assessing
state and trait anxiety on the Romanian population.

KEYWORDS: state and trait anxiety, construct validity, content validity,

psychometric properties, Romanian population

INTRODUCTION

The Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales (EMAS) and the EMAS Social Anxiety
Scales (EMAS-SAS) have been developed as a measure of state and trait anxiety in
people with and without anxiety symptoms (Endler, Edwards, & Vitelli, 1991;
Endler & Flett, 2002). They assess state anxiety (EMAS-S), different dimensions of
trait anxiety (EMAS-T and SAS-T) and the perception of anxiety (EMAS-P and

*
Corresponding author:
E-mail: micleas@yahoo.com
148 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

SAS-P) (for a comprehensive description of EMAS and EMAS-SAS components see

Endler, Edwards & Vitelli, 1991, and Endler & Flett, 2002).
The EMAS-S has 20 items, measuring autonomic-emotional (AE)
component and the cognitive-worry (CW) component of state anxiety. The EMAS-
T consists of 60 items, the same 15 items for each of the measured dimension of
trait anxiety: a) situations where one is evaluated by other people; b) situations
where one may encounter physical danger; c) new or strange situations; d)
involvement in daily routines. The EMAS-P is a measure of the subjective
perception of the type and degree of threat evoked by the particular situation
experienced by the individual at the testing time and a supplementary scale of
threat perception. There are three additional open-ended items, aiming to identify
the specific aspects of the immediate situation that might be perceived as stressful.
Similar to EMAS-T, the SAS-T also has 60 items. Along with the social evaluation
subscale already included in EMAS-T, SAS-T has three new subscales: separation,
self-disclosure to family and self-disclosure to friends. The SAS-P is similar to
EMAS-P, measuring the perceived type and degree of threat in the immediate
situation. Each item of every subscale of EMAS and EMAS-SAS is rated on a 5-
point Lickert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
Previous psychometric investigations have shown that the EMAS and
EMAS-SAS achieve good internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities and it is
effective in differentiating between clinical and non-clinical population, as well as
between stressful and non-stressful situations (Miclea, Albu, & Ciuca, 2009).
The main purpose of this study is to examine the construct and content
validity of Romanian versions of EMAS and EMAS-SAS.

METHODS

Participants and procedure

The sample consisted of 786 adolescents and adults, of both sexes, without
anxious symptomatology. The participants came from two different geographic
areas – Transylvania and Banat (representing 5 different counties: Alba, Arad,
Cluj, Sălaj, and Timis). The mean age, standard deviation and the age range of
participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Demographic data for all the participants

Adolescents Adults
Males Females Males Females
N 98 184 212 292
Mean age, years (SD) 16.38 (1.93) 16.45 (1.86) 36.10 (14.31) 36.69 (12.56)
Age min.-max. (years) 14-20 14-20 21-85 21-84
Note: SD= standard deviation

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 149

Filling in the scales was performed in high schools, universities, mental

hospitals and medical clinics, at participants’ home, at different work places, both
in urban and rural areas. The scales were administered individually or in group,
depending on the situation. All the participants collaborated voluntarily and they
took up all the time that was necessary to fill in the scales properly.
EMAS was administered first, followed by EMAS-SAS. All the operators
(persons administering the EMAS and EMAS-SAS scales) were instructed to follow
the same administration procedure (instructions given in the original manual of the
EMAS), in order to minimize or prevent the eventual influences on filling in the
scales.
The results obtained in different phases of the validation study have been
compared to those based on various samples from U.S. and Canada (Table 2).

Data analysis

All data analyses were performed with SPSS for Windows software
(version 13.0). t test was used for comparisons. Data are presented as mean ± SD
where appropriate. Probability values are two-tailed and the significance level was
considered at .05.

Table 2
Demographic characteristics of the samples used for the comparisons of the validation
results on EMAS and EMAS-SAS for Romanian version (Endler, Edwards & Vitelli, 1991;
Endler & Flett, 2002)

Age (years)
Sample Scale Total Male Female
Min. Max.
Adults from U.S. 203 103 100 18 79
Students from U.S. 595 243 352 17 65
Adults from Canada EMAS 321 161 160 16 64
Students from Canada 534 166 368 17 43
Adolescents from Canada 229 102 127 15 20
Adults from U.S. and
EMAS- 328 150 178
Canada
SAS
Students from Canada 502 251 251

RESULTS
Sex differences
The results are presented separately by sex and by age groups because
significant differences between sexes were identified (Tables 3 and 4). In order to
investigate the sex differences on all sub-scales of EMAS and EMAS-SAS,
t-comparisons were performed for both age groups. The Tables 3 and 4 present the

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
150 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

means, t values and significance level for comparisons made for EMAS-T and
SAS-T.
There were no differences between men and women for any of the age
groups for EMAS-S and its components (autonomic-emotional and cognitive), data
not shown.
The comparisons for EMAS-T revealed significant differences between
sexes, women having higher mean scores than men for almost all subscales (table
3). The sole exception is on daily routines subscale (EMAS-T-DR) where the
difference was not statistically significant. These results are similar to those
reported in other studies (Kim et al., 2000; Somers et al., 2006).
The analysis of the EMAS-T subscales revealed that the highest mean
values were found for trait anxiety related to physical danger (EMAS-T-PD),
whereas the lowest mean values have been identified for trait anxiety related to
daily routines (EMAS-T-DR), for both age groups and sexes (Table 3). The same
rank order of means was observed in all samples from U.S. and Canada (Endler,
Edwards, Vitelli, 1991).

Table 3
Differences between sexes for EMAS-T

Male Female
Subscale Age sample t
N m σ N m σ
EMAS-T- Adolescents 93 38.30 9.28 183 42.77 10.04 -3.585***
SE Adults 210 39.22 8.25 290 42.89 10.08 -4.466***
EMAS-T- Adolescents 96 44.54 9.54 182 50.24 10.71 -4.373***
PD Adults 211 47.46 9.22 288 52.58 10.04 -5.822***
EMAS-T- Adolescents 96 37.03 9.34 182 39.90 10.46 -2.250*
AM Adults 210 39.40 8.44 285 42.88 9.59 -4.196***
EMAS-T- Adolescents 95 29.87 8.69 180 31.04 9.07 -1.028
DR Adults 209 30.35 9.16 288 29.29 9.76 1.224
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, m = mean, σ = standard deviation
EMAS-T-SE = EMAS-T Social Evaluation; EMAS-T-PD = EMAS-T Physical Danger;
EMAS-T-AM = EMAS-T Ambiguity; EMAS-T-DR = EMAS-T Daily Routines.

Similar differences between sexes were observed for EMAS-SAS-T (Table

4) but only for adolescents (t = 4.330. p < .001 for separation; t = 3.358. p < .001
for self-disclosure to family; t = 3.324. p < .001 for self-disclosure to friends). In
all cases, female had higher mean scores than male peers.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 151

Table 4
Differences between sexes for SAS-T

Male Female
Subscale Age sample t
N m σ N m σ
Adolescents 95 45.51 9.69 177 50.76 9.47 -4.330***
SAS-T-SA
Adults 196 47.03 9.11 267 48.20 9.84 -1.307
SAS-T- Adolescents 96 44.33 9.86 179 48.85 11.97 -3.358***
SDFA Adults 197 42.14 10.73 273 43.59 10.40 -1.471
SAS-T- Adolescents 94 38.98 9.55 180 43.23 10.31 -3.324***
SDFR Adults 193 39.80 9.00 271 40.96 9.14 -1.353
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, m = mean, σ = standard deviation
SAS-T-SA = EMAS-SAS-T Separation; SAS-T-SDFA = EMAS-SAS-T Self-Disclosure to
Family; SAS-T-SDFR = EMAS-SAS-T Self-Disclosure to Friends.

Regarding the EMAS-P and SAS-P, there were no significant differences

between men and women, with the only exception of perceiving the situation as
being one of self-disclosure to friends (SAS-P-SDFR), where females adolescent
have higher scores than male adolescents (t = 1.983, p < .05, data not shown).
We compared the results obtained on the Romanian population for EMAS
subscales with those obtained on U.S. and Canada samples, as reported by Endler,
Edwards and Vitelli (1991). For Romanian population, the differences between the
mean scores were significant for three EMAS-T subscales, relatively similar results
being obtained for U.S. and Canadian samples. As one can see, for almost all the
cases, when the mean differences were not statistically significant for Romanian
samples, no significant differences were found in the U.S. and Canadian samples
either (Table 5). Excepting the U.S. student sample, in all cases when the
differences between sexes were statistically significant, the mean scores for women
were higher than those obtained by men for all the other samples, at all the EMAS
subscales.

Validity studies

The main characteristic of EMAS and EMAS-SAS is the

multidimensionality. The anxiety state as assessed by EMAS (EMAS-S) has two
distinct conceptual dimensions: autonomic-emotional arousal and cognitive worry.
The EMAS-T is supposed to have four independent dimensions (social evaluation,
physical danger, ambiguity, daily routines) and the SAS-T has three new
dimensions, namely separation, self-disclosure to family and self-disclosure to
friends. The independence of these dimensions was examined by intercorrelations
among the subscales and factor analyses. Content validity was addressed by
performing item-reminder correlations (correlation between an individual item and
the rest of its scale).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
152 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

Table 5
Significant differences of the mean scores between men and women for all samples at
EMAS subscales

Sample
Subscale Romania USA Canada
a b c b a c b
EMAS-S-AE ***
EMAS-S-CW ** **
EMAS-S Total *** **
EMAS-T-SE *** *** *** *** ** ***
EMAS-T-PD *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
EMAS-T-AM * *** *** ** *
EMAS-T-DR
EMAS-P-SE
EMAS-P-PD *
EMAS-P-AM *
EMAS-P-DR ***
EMAS-P-TH
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; a = adolescents, b = adults, c = students
EMAS-S-AE = EMAS-S Autonomic-Emotional, EMAS-S-CW = EMAS-S Cognitive Worry,
EMAS-P-SE = EMAS-P Social Evaluation; EMAS-P-PD = EMAS-P Physical Danger;
EMAS-P-AM = EMAS-P Ambiguity; EMAS-P-DR = EMAS-P Daily Routines;
EMAS-P-TH = EMAS-P Threat.

Construct validity
Intercorrelations between the subscales of state anxiety (EMAS-S) and trait
anxiety (EMAS-T, SAS-T) respectively are presented in Table 6. The sample size
can vary because of missing data.

Table 6
Correlation coefficients between the EMAS-S, EMAS-T, SAS-T subscales

Adolescents Adults
Subscales being correlated Male Female Male Female
(N=96) (N=180) (N=210) (N=289)
EMAS-S-AE vs. EMAS-S-CW 0.783*** 0.761*** 0.837*** 0.839***
EMAS-S-AE vs. EMAS-S total 0.920*** 0.925*** 0.956*** 0.953***
EMAS-S-CW vs. EMAS-S total 0.943*** 0.950*** 0.960*** 0.965***
(N=96) (N=183) (N=210) (N=290)
EMAS-T-SE vs. EMAS-T-PD 0.315 ** 0.433*** 0.486*** 0.362 ***
EMAS-T-SE vs. EMAS-T-AM 0.541*** 0.567*** 0.634*** 0.527 ***
EMAS-T-SE vs. EMAS-T-DR 0.415*** 0.228 ** 0.416*** 0.178 **

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 153

EMAS-T-PD vs. EMAS-T-AM 0.493*** 0.374*** 0.561*** 0.425 ***

EMAS-T-PD vs. EMAS-T-DR 0.224 * -0.093 0.068 -0.210 ***
EMAS-T-AM vs. EMAS-T-DR 0.436 *** 0.343 *** 0.395 *** 0.254 ***
(N=96) (N=180) (N=197) (N=273)
SAS-T−SE vs. SAS-T-SDFA 0.421 *** 0.532 *** 0.431 *** 0.442 ***
SAS-T−SE vs. SAS-T-SDFR 0.263 * 0.238 *** 0.430 *** 0.377 ***
SAS-T−SDFA vs. SAS-T-SDFR 0.302 ** 0.590 *** 0.726 *** 0.634 ***
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

As one can see, all the correlations between EMAS-S subscales on the
Romanian population are significant at the .001 level, the values being higher than
those obtained on U.S. and Canadian samples (Endler, Edwards, & Vitelli, 1991).
Regarding the intercorrelations between the EMAS-T subscales, the highest
correlation coefficient values were obtained between the subscales assessing
anxiety trait in social evaluation (EMAS-T-SE) and physical danger (EMAS-T-PD)
and the ambiguous situations (EMAS-T-AM), respectively. Endler, Edwards, and
Vitelli (1991) made an attempt to explain the higher values of these three
correlation coefficients rising the possibility that the anxiety in ambiguous
situations might have some of social evaluation and physical danger components.
The lowest correlation values were found between EMAS-T-PD and
EMAS-T-DR (physical danger versus daily routines), results being consistent with
those obtained on U.S. and Canadian populations, where there was no statistical
significance of these correlation coefficients.
We also performed the correlations between the EMAS-T and SAS-T
subscales and we found that the vast majority of them was highly significant
(p = .001), both for adolescent and adult Romanian population (Table 7). For the
EMAS-SAS-T, the correlation coefficients found on Romanian population were
higher than those reported on U.S. and Canadian samples (Endler & Flett, 2002),
data not shown.

Table 7
Correlation coefficients between the EMAS-T and SAS-T subscales

Subscales being correlated Adolescents Adults

Male Female Male Female
(N=96) (N=180) (N=197) (N=273)
EMAS-T-ES SAS-T-SE 0.150 0.311 *** 0.239 *** 0.200 ***
SAS-T-SDFA 0.186 0.468 *** 0.364 *** 0.405 ***
SAS-T-SDFR 0.469 *** 0.384 *** 0.410 *** 0.344 ***
EMAS-T-PD SAS-T-SE 0.423 *** 0.462 *** 0.405 *** 0.360 ***
SAS-T-SDFA 0.299 ** 0.431 *** 0.381 *** 0.304 ***
SAS-T-SDFR 0.293 ** 0.296 *** 0.382 *** 0.169 **
EMAS-T-AM SAS-T-SE 0.259 * 0.245 *** 0.328 *** 0.343 ***
SAS-T-SDFA 0.163 0.396 *** 0.446 *** 0.383 ***
SAS-T-SDFR 0.582 *** 0.363 *** 0 527 *** 0.335 ***

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
154 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

EMAS-T-DR SAS-T-SE -0.065 -0.055 0.106 0.098

SAS-T-SDFA -0.181 0.128 0.254 *** 0.140 *
SAS-T-SDFR 0.269 ** 0.297 *** 0.381 *** 0.271 ***
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. For some correlation coefficients the sample size is
slightly smaller than reported because of few missing data.

The intercorrelations between the EMAS and EMAS-SAS subscales provide

partial support for the independence of the separate dimensions and for their
multidimensional characteristics.

Content validity

Correlations between each item and the rest of subscale it belongs to were
computed for EMAS-S, EMAS-T and SAS-T, for both sexes and age groups. Table 8
presents the intervals of correlation coefficients values, for each subscale. Except
for very few cases, all the correlation coefficients reached the statistical
significance (p< .001).
The values ranged from .04 to .80, indicating a moderate variability of the
results. Endler, Edwards, and Vitelli (1991) have reported the same findings for
U.S. and Canada samples. It is worth noticing that correlation coefficients values
for Romanian version of EMAS are slightly lower than those for U.S. and Canadian
populations.

Table 8
Intervals of item-reminder correlation coefficients

Sample by Adolescents Adults

age group
Male Female Male Female
Subscale
EMAS-S-AE 0.213 − 0.656 0.398 − 0.679 0.472 − 0.750 0.419 − 0.667
EMAS-S-CW 0.324 − 0.781 0.464 − 0.719 0.453 − 0.780 0.489 − 0.803
EMAS-T-SE 0.109 − 0.582 0.232 − 0.659 0.044 − 0.566 0.216 − 0.697
EMAS-T-PD 0.106 − 0.682 0.150 − 0.728 0.190 − 0.693 0.182 − 0.721
EMAS-T-AM 0.246 − 0.625 0.348 − 0.625 0.144 − 0.615 0.389 − 0.596
EMAS-T-DR 0.286 − 0.632 0.310 − 0.629 0.267 − 0.643 0.382 − 0.710
SAS-T-SA 0.166 − 0.644 0.160 − 0.648 0.250 − 0.644 0.090 − 0.644
SAS-T-SDFA 0.103 − 0.659 0.279 − 0.772 0.366 − 0.717 0.284 − 0.641
SAS-T-SDFR 0.129 − 0.708 0.244 − 0.660 0.183 − 0.665 0.230 − 0.566

Similarly to the results obtained by the authors for the original EMAS,
correlation coefficients obtained for autonomic-emotional component of state
anxiety (EMAS-S-AE) were smaller than those of cognitive dimension of state
anxiety (EMAS-S-CW), for both sexes and age groups (Endler, Edwards & Vitelli,
1991). Concerning the trait anxiety dimensions, item 1 (“Seek experiences like
this”) had lower correlations with the rest of the subscale than any other items on

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 155

the social evaluation subscale (EMAS-T-SE) and daily routines subscale (EMAS-T-
DR) for both sexes and age groups.

Factor analysis

The factor analyses supported multidimensional approach to state and trait

anxiety, as being measured by the EMAS. The factor structure of EMAS and
EMAS-SAS was examined using principal component analysis and Varimax
rotation, for adolescents and adults of both sexes. Table 9 presents the results of
factor analyses of the EMAS-S items for studied samples. Similarly to the U.S. and
Canada samples, the factor analyses on Romanian population identified four or five
factors. The item loadings in extracted factors for EMAS-S on adolescents and
adults samples are presented in Tables 10 and 11 (see Appendix 1 and 2).

Table 9
Principal component factor analyses of the EMAS-S items

Adolescents Adults
Male Female Male Female
Number of extracted factors 5 4 4 4
% of total variance accounted from:
All extracted factors 63.37 % 57.92 % 67.32 % 64.86 %
Factor F1 18.14 % 21.12 % 22.69 % 20.54 %
Factor F2 18.09 % 13.12 % 18.78 % 17.14 %
Factor F3 11.43 % 12.30 % 14.14 % 13.67 %
Factor F4 9.38 % 11.38 % 11.71 % 13.51 %
Factor F5 6.33 %

Tables 12 to 14 present the items with highest loading factor for every
factor, offering a comprehensive comparison between the Romanian, U.S. and
Canadian adolescent and adult populations (see Appendix 3, 4 and 5). As shown,
the factor analyses results differ substantially between samples and sexes, but the
majority of items with highest loading for a specific factor belong to the same
EMAS-S subscale.
Factor analyses of EMAS-T (using principal component analysis and
Varimax rotation) were conducted separately for both sexes, within the adolescent
and adult samples. Table 15 presents the results of factor analyses of the EMAS-T
items. There were identified 13 to 16 factors. Table 16 (see Appendix 6) shows
the number of items of each EMAS-T subscale, having the highest factor
loading for every extracted factor, for all samples.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
156 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

Table 15
Principal component factor analyses of the EMAS-T items

Adolescents Adults
Male Female Male Female
Number of extracted factors 16 15 14 13
% of total variance accounted from:
All extracted factors 76.23 % 72.56 % 70.63 % 68.36 %
First extracted factor (F1) 7.54 % 10.46 % 8.68 % 8.67 %
Last extracted factor 2.74 % 2.33 % 2.18 % 2.37 %

As for the EMAS-S subscales, with some exceptions, the majority of items
with highest loading for a specific factor belong to the same EMAS-T subscale,
sustaining the fact that the EMAS-T subscales are relatively independent and they
are measuring different dimensions. The results revealed that, for every EMAS-T
subscale, item 1 (“Seek experiences like this”), item 6 (“Look forward to these
situations”) and item 10 (“Enjoy these situations”) have the highest loading in the
same particular factor, across all groups, independent of age or sex. The
multidimensionality of trait anxiety was supported by the fact that the factors
where the three mentioned items have the highest factor loading are different from
one EMAS-T subscale to another.
The same procedure of factor analyses was performed for SAS-T. Table 17
presents the results of factor analyses of the SAS-T items where 13 to 16 factors
were identified.

Table 17
Principal component factor analyses of the SAS-T items

Adolescents Adults
Male Female Male Female
Number of extracted factors 16 15 13 14
% of total variance accounted from:
All extracted factors 76,13 % 72,67 % 69,31 % 68,94 %
First extracted factor (F1) 9,13 % 11,24 % 13,59 % 10,81 %
Last extracted factor 2,72 % 2,27 % 2,24 % 2,40 %

The number of items of each SAS-T subscale, having the highest factor
loading for every extracted factor, for all samples, are presented in Table 18 (see
Appendix 7). As this table demonstrates, for the most of the factors, all or almost
all the items with the highest factor loading for a specific factor belong to the same
SAS-T subscale.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 157

Some exceptions became apparent, in cases where few items having the
same content and with highest factor loading for the same factor were belonging to
different subscales. Nevertheless, the large majority of SAS-T items with highest
factor loading for a specific factor were part of the same subscale. Once again,
these results sustain the fact that the SAS-T subscales are measuring different
aspects of trait anxiety.
In the case of adult sample, the first extracted factor (F1) consists of a lot
of high factor loading items derived from SAS-T-SDFA and SAS-T-SDFR (6 plus 6
items in male sample and 6 plus 7 items in female sample). An explanation could
lie in the fact that both subscales are self-disclosure measures (to the family and to
the close friends, respectively).
As for the EMAS-T, items 1, 6, and 10 loaded the most the same factor.
This was particularly applicable for all SAS-T subscales in case of male samples,
for social evaluation and self-disclosure subscales in the female samples, and for
social evaluation subscale in adolescent sample.
The findings that the factors where these three particular items have the
highest factor loading are different from one SAS-T subscale to another supported
the multidimensional approach to trait anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the factorial structure of the Romanian versions of the EMAS
and EMAS-SAS and it demonstrates that these scales are providing good
psychometric properties, especially in terms of construct and content validity.
Instruments for state and trait anxiety measurement represent a useful
modality for psychologist and psychotherapists to better understand their clients or
patients, to be more effective in clinical settings for assessment or interventional
purposes. All the analyses undertaken regarding the psychometric characteristics of
the EMAS and EMAS-SAS strongly recommend them for practical and research use.
They can be used for the assessment, research, intervention, and the follow-up of
anxiety.

REFERENCES

Donat, D. C. (1983). Predicting state anxiety: A comparison of multidimensional and

unidimensional trait approaches. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 256-262.
Endler, N. S., Edwards, J. M., Vitelli, R. (1991). Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales
(EMAS). Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. USA.
Endler, N. S., Flett, G. L. (2002). EMAS Social Anxiey Scales (EMAS-SAS). Western
Psychological Services, Los Angeles. USA.
Kim, K. A., Moser, D. K., Garvin, B. J., Riegel, B. J., Doering, L. V., Jadack, R. A.,
McKinley, S., Schueler, A. L., Underman, L. & McErlean, E. (2000). Differences

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 158 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

between men and women in anxiety early after acute myocardial infarction.
American Journal of Critical Care, vol. 9, no. 4, 245-253.
Miclea, Ş, Albu, M., & Ciuca, A. (2009). The Romanian adaptation of ENDLER
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale (EMAS), Cognition, Brain, Behavior, Vol. XIII,
No. 1 (March), 59-77.
Motherhill, K. J., Dobson, K. S., & Neufeld, R. W. (1986). The interaction model of
anxiety: An evaluation of the different hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 640-648.
Somers, J. M., Goldner, E. M., Waraich, P., & Hsu, L. (2006). Prevalence and incidence
studies of anxiety disorders: A systematic review of the literature. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 100–103.

Appendix 1

Table 10
Item loading in extracted factors for EMAS-S on adolescent sample

Adolescents
Ite
Subscales Male Female
m
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4
1 EMAS-S-AE 0.132 0.192 0.101 0.234 0.772 0.140 0.648 0.033 0.112
2 EMAS-S-CW 0.676 0.230 0.033 0.337 0.024 0.777 0.222 -0.058 0.059
3 EMAS-S-AE 0.274 0.292 0.441 0.121 -0.554 -0.034 0.270 0.126 0.667
4 EMAS-S-CW 0.137 0.070 -0.005 0.715 0.167 0.116 0.067 0.860 0.159
5 EMAS-S-AE 0.046 0.732 0.024 0.242 -0.264 0.409 0.304 0.450 0.381
6 EMAS-S-AE 0.136 0.735 0.116 0.130 0.015 0.301 0.454 0.140 0.333
7 EMAS-S-CW 0.431 0.643 0.053 0.162 0.257 0.577 0.348 0.301 -0.121
8 EMAS-S-CW 0.239 0.168 0.051 0.816 -0.055 0.233 0.290 0.755 -0.069
9 EMAS-S-AE 0.078 0.245 0.654 -0.012 -0.212 0.099 0.786 0.118 0.003
10 EMAS-S-CW 0.845 0.142 0.069 0.109 -0.138 0.458 0.429 0.240 0.194
11 EMAS-S-AE 0.069 0.095 0.615 0.112 0.058 0.373 0.031 -0.158 0.648
12 EMAS-S-CW 0.738 0.233 0.237 0.008 0.220 0.727 0.069 0.236 0.238
13 EMAS-S-CW 0.751 0.239 0.225 0.328 0.031 0.816 0.106 0.171 0.215
14 EMAS-S-AE 0.427 0.689 0.159 0.118 0.097 0.626 0.159 0.225 0.321
15 EMAS-S-CW 0.553 0.293 0.383 0.182 -0.040 0.601 0.167 0.392 0.020
16 EMAS-S-AE 0.264 0.580 0.262 0.031 0.111 0.267 -0.043 0.489 0.612
17 EMAS-S-AE 0.320 0.378 0.330 -0.044 0.151 0.307 0.307 0.312 0.329
18 EMAS-S-CW 0.498 0.616 0.149 -0.106 -0.056 0.348 0.474 0.156 0.206
19 EMAS-S-CW 0.230 0.026 0.847 -0.030 0.098 0.559 0.327 0.070 0.310
20 EMAS-S-AE 0.065 0.550 0.232 0.471 0.136 0.191 0.525 0.254 0.483
Note: EMAS-S-AE = EMAS-S Autonomic-Emotional, EMAS-S-CW = EMAS-S Cognitive
Worry

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 159

Appendix 2

Table 11
Item loading in extracted factors for EMAS-S on adult sample

Adults
Item Subscale Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4
EMAS-S-AE 0.016 0.122 0.686 0.348 0.115 0.177 0.778 -0.061
2 EMAS-S-CW 0.015 0.515 0.348 0.447 0.615 0.374 0.331 -0.145
3 EMAS-S-AE 0.357 0.024 0.686 0.069 0.200 0.385 0.279 0.424
4 EMAS-S-CW 0.151 0.012 0.220 0.818 0.118 0.794 0.036 0.098
5 EMAS-S-AE 0.560 0.346 0.226 0.322 0.267 0.556 0.178 0.398
6 EMAS-S-AE 0.571 0.315 0.492 0.025 0.285 0.338 0.130 0.674
7 EMAS-S-CW 0.506 0.639 0.002 0.163 0.489 0.510 0.213 0.387
8 EMAS-S-CW 0.296 0.347 0.123 0.743 0.436 0.583 0.054 0.172
9 EMAS-S-AE 0.200 0.260 0.708 0.142 0.207 0.003 0.639 0.324
10 EMAS-S-CW 0.201 0.634 0.505 0.054 0.777 0.031 0.211 0.279
11 EMAS-S-AE 0.390 0.350 0.441 0.317 0.235 0.187 0.083 0.741
12 EMAS-S-CW 0.232 0.759 0.233 -0.013 0.679 0.204 0.180 0.394
13 EMAS-S-CW 0.330 0.766 0.108 0.307 0.829 0.272 0.086 0.274
14 EMAS-S-AE 0.507 0.625 0.100 0.255 0.660 0.397 0.179 0.313
15 EMAS-S-CW 0.634 0.446 0.200 0.303 0.607 0.456 0.241 0.301
16 EMAS-S-AE 0.578 0.378 0.159 0.366 0.316 0.481 0.341 0.342
17 EMAS-S-AE 0.716 0.024 0.404 -0.098 0.220 0.009 0.612 0.520
18 EMAS-S-CW 0.727 0.173 0.372 0.087 0.174 0.306 0.755 0.142
19 EMAS-S-CW 0.681 0.320 -0.012 0.322 0.469 0.516 0.256 0.066
20 EMAS-S-AE 0.714 0.330 0.120 0.179 0.171 0.587 0.358 0.364
Note: EMAS-S-AE = EMAS-S Autonomic-Emotional,
EMAS-S-C = EMAS-S Cognitive Worry

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
160 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

Appendix 3
Table 12
Factor loadings of the EMAS-S items for Romanian, U.S. and Canadian adult samples

Item Romanian Adults U.S. Adults

Male Female Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
1 X X X X
2 X X X X
3 X X X X
4 X X X X
5 X X X X
6 X X X X
7 X X X X
8 X X X X
9 X X X X
10 X X X X
11 X X X X
12 X X X X
13 X X X X
14 X X X X
15 X X X X
16 X X X X
17 X X X X
18 X X X X
19 X X X X
20 X X X X
Item Canadian Adults
Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4
1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X X
19 X X
20 X X

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 161

Appendix 4
Table 13
Factor loadings of the EMAS-S items for Romanian and Canadian adolescent samples

Romanian Adolescents
Item Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4
1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X X
19 X X
20 X X
Canadian Adolescents
Item Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X X
19 X X
20 X X

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
162 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

Appendix 5
Table 14
Factor loadings of the EMAS-S items for U.S. and Canadian student samples
U.S. Students
Item Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4
1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X X
19 X X
20 X X
Canadian Students
Item Male Female
F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4
1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X X
19 X X
20 X X

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu 163

Appendix 6
Table 16
Number of items of EMAS-T subscale with the highest factor loading in every specific
factor

F Adolescents
a Male Female
c
t EMA EMA EMA EMA EMA EMA EMA EMA
o S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T-
r SE PD AM DR SE PD AM DR
F1 5 4 2 5
F2 7 9
F3 3 1 1 6
F4 1 2 1 7
F5 4 1 1 1 1
F6 3 4
F7 3 1 1 1
F8 3 4
F9 1 1 1 1 3
F10 1 2 1 3
F11 3 1 1
F12 1 2 2 2 1
F13 1 2 1
F14 3
F15 1 1
F16 1 1
F Adults
a Male Female
c EM
t EMA EMA EMA EMA EMA
EMAS AS- EMAS
o S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T- S-T-
-T-DR T- -T-DR
r SE PD AM PD AM
SE
F1 9 7 2
F2 4 1 2 3 1 8
F3 6 7
F4 3 1 6
F5 3 1 6
F6 4 1 1 1
F7 5 1 4
F8 3 3
F9 1 1 1 3
F10 3 1 1 1
F11 3 3
F12 3 2
F13 1 1 1 1
F14
F15
F16

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164
 164 Ş. Miclea, A. Ciuca, M. Albu

Appendix 7
Table 18
Number of items of SAS-T subscale with the highest factor loading in every specific factor
Adolescents
Male Female
Facto
SAS-T1 SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS-
r
T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
F1 1 10 1 6
F2 1 1 6 5
F3 7 2 4
F4 4 1 1 1 1 1
F5 4 1 1 4
F6 5 4
F7 2 6
F8 4 3
F9 1 4
F10 2 1 1 1 1
F11 2 1 1 1 1
F12 2 1 2
F13 1 2
F14 1 1 1
F15 1 1 2
F16 1
Adults
Male Female
Facto
SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS- SAS-
r
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
F1 6 6 6 7
F2 8 8
F3 5 7
F4 7 1 1 1 1
F5 1 2 1 4
F6 4 4
F7 4 1 3
F8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
F9 4 4
F10 3 3
F11 1 1 1 2
F12 1 1 1
F13 1 1
F14
F15
F16

Note: SAS-T1 = SAS-T Separation; SAS-T2 = SAS-T Self-disclosure to family;

SAS-T3 = SAS-T Self-disclosure to friends; SAS-T4 = SAS-T Social Evaluation

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

13 (2009) 147-164

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s