Gender bias in the sixteen-item Anxiety Sensitivity Index: An application of polytomous differential item functioning
Abstract
Gender differences in measures of anxiety sensitivity (AS) are similar to gender differences across anxiety disorders; females exhibit higher levels of AS and a greater prevalence of anxiety disorders than males. The current study confirms higher scores on the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI) in females. Further analysis reveals, however, that gender differences on the ASI may arise from a single item's bias against women. Four different statistics examining differential item functioning (DIF) indicate that women are more likely to endorse the item, "It scares me when I feel faint", even if they score no higher on the ASI than males. Removing this biased item does not alter internal consistency of the scale, but eliminates the significant gender difference. The results suggest that differences on the ASI require careful interpretation as item bias may artificially inflate ASI scores in females.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anxiety sensitivity is a salient risk factor for women observed from the review.
“some of the most salient risk factors for women observed from our review were rumination33,44,49,65,73 and anxiety sensitivity.51,55,57,65”
From Factors associated with gender and sex differences in anxiety prevalence and comorbidity: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [57]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anxiety sensitivity and the anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review and synthesis.
Olatunji, B. O., & Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0017428 · Cited by 609 · see citing works
Farhane-Medina, N. Z., Luque, B., Tabernero, C., & Castillo-Mayén, R. (2022) · Science Progress · doi:10.1177/00368504221135469 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.005 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Self-citationGonzalez, A., Zvolensky, M. J., Hogan, J., McLeish, A. C., & Weibust, K. S. (2011) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.07.011 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Forsyth, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- ORCID
- Earleywine, Mitch
- Venue
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 256-259
- ISSN
- 0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095386625
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH6010701)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Keywords
- anxiety sensitivity, Anxiety Sensitivity Index, gender differences, differential item functioning, scale internal consistency, anxiety disorders
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prejudice, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Prevalence, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review