Cited by 947Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Reliability Generalization of Scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

Barnes, Laura L. B., Harp, Diane, Jung, Woo Sik·2002·Educational and Psychological Measurement

Abstract

A reliability generalization study for Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was conducted. A total of 816 research articles utilizing the STAI between 1990 and 2000 were reviewed and classified as having (a) ignored reliability (73%), (b) mentioned reliability or reported reliability coefficients from another source (21%), or (c) computed reliability for the data at hand (6%). Articles in medically oriented journals were shorter and somewhat less likely to mention or compute reliability than nonmedically oriented articles, perhaps due to paradigm differences. Average reliability coefficients were acceptable for both internal consistency and test-retest, but variation was present among the estimates. State test-retest coefficients were lower than internal consistency coefficients. Score variability was predictive of internal consistency reliability for scores on both scales. Other predictors were the age of research participants, the form of the STAI, and the type of research design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013164402062004005

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Barnes et al. (2002) found test-retest correlations ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 for trait anxiety and 0.34 to 0.96 for state anxiety.

    “Problems with this style of assessment were shown in Barnes etal. (2002) reliability investigation of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Gaudry etal., 1975), which found a test-retest correlation ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 for trait anxiety, and 0.34 to 0.96 for state anxiety.”

    From Investigating state and trait aspects of resilience using Generalizability theory (2024) · cites this paper as Barnes et al., 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barnes, L. L. B., Harp, D., & Jung, W. S.
Affiliations
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • Tulsa Community College (US)
  • Bluffton University (US)
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Published
2002-08
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
603-618
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
OpenAlex
W2171256147
Cited by
947
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 35
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational and Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, reliability generalization, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, anxiety assessment, score variability, research reporting practices

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