Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 211215

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary psychometric data and

scale validation
Emily M. Bartholomay, Daniel D. Houlihan
Minnesota State University, Mankato, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Public speaking anxiety (PSA) is one of the most prevalent forms of anxiety and effects approximately one in ve
Received 11 January 2016 people. There are a handful of scales used to measure PSA, but these scales have limited psychometric data, bring-
Accepted 12 January 2016 ing their validity into question. In addition, few of these scales include both positively and negatively worded
Available online xxxx
items, making them susceptible to acquiescence. Many are limited to measuring a single aspect of anxiety
(e.g., cognitive) and do not address the three components of anxiety (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and physiologi-
Keywords:
Scale development
cal). Valid, empirically based psychological assessment is a vital predecessor to successful treatment and tracking
Psychometric data treatment outcomes. This paper describes preliminary psychometric data of the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale
Public speaking anxiety (PSAS), an instrument measuring cognitions, behaviors, and physiological manifestations of speech anxiety. Re-
Psychological assessment sults of this study suggest that the PSAS is a highly reliable and valid measure to assess public speaking anxiety.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.3. Importance of assessment

1.1. Background
Public speaking anxiety (PSA) is among the most prevalent forms of
anxiety disorders, with approximately one in ve individuals experienc-
ing a degree of this type of anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995). Elevated
rates of speech anxiety are noted among individuals with social anxiety
disorders, with approximately 97% of socially anxious individuals also
reporting impairing PSA (Beidel & Turner, 2007). Public speaking anxi-
ety, in its most severe form, is a distinct subtype of social anxiety disor-
der, with a 12-month prevalence rate of approximately 7% (APA, 2013).
1.2. Outcomes of anxiety
Anxiety disorders can result in a variety of negative outcomes. Social
anxiety and public speaking anxiety in particular often result in impair-
ment in career prospects. In a recent study, Blume, Dreher, and Baldwin
(2010) found that individuals with public speaking anxiety were less able
to demonstrate critical thinking skills in group discussion situations. Aside
from impairment in the work sector (e.g., lower employment rates, lower
socioeconomic status, lack of advancement), people with signicant
public speaking anxiety may also experience mediocre academic perfor-
mance, enhanced feelings of loneliness or social isolation, and lower over-
all quality of life (Beidel, Turner, & Dancu, 1985).
Corresponding author at: 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001, United States.
E-mail address: daniel.houlihan@mnsu.edu (D.D. Houlihan).
Assessment serves a variety of functions that aid both the clinician
and the researcher. The assessment process can help determine the
proper diagnosis for a client. Assessment may also aid in the description
of the problem, case formulation and description, and treatment plan-
ning. Continued assessment provides additional benets in tracking
treatment outcomes and research efcacy.
1.4. Methods of assessment
Clinical interviews are among the most common methods used in
the clinical assessment process. However, interviews require trained
professionals to administer, and this method requires extensive time,
with interviews typically taking 30 to 50 min (Antony, Orsillo, &
Roemer, 2001). Although this method of assessment is reliable and
valid, it does not typically take severity, global functioning, and individ-
ual differences into account (Rodriguez-Seijas, Eaton, & Krueger, 2015).
Behavioral assessment and direct observation are other methods
that may be used to successfully assess clinical issues. These methods
also tend to be reliable, but can take extensive periods of time and
may lack efciency (Antony et al., 2001; Rodriguez-Seijas et al., 2015).
Even though behavioral measures of anxiety are effective methods of
assessment that provide worthwhile information, they do not take
into account cognitive or physiological aspects of anxiety.
Physiological measures can also be used to effectively assess anxiety,
as there is a direct relationship between bodily sensations and public
speaking anxiety (McCullough, Russell, Behnke, Sawyer, & Witt, 2006).
Physiological assessment, specically heart rate measurement, tends
to be a reliable and v alid method of assessment for anxiety; however,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.026
0191-8869/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
212 E.M. Bartholomay, D.D. Houlihan / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 211215
many individuals who endorse public peaking anxiety may not exhibit
physiological signs of arousal (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001). Although phys-
iological measures of anxiety are typically reliable and valid, they only
measure one component of anxiety and fail to take behavioral and cog-
nitive components into account.
Self-report measures can be used to provide much-needed informa-
tion in the assessment process. Although they are rarely used in clinical
settings as a stand-alone for assessment, they are often used to supple-
ment clinical interviews (Antony et al., 2001). Self-report scales have a
variety of advantages, but the major weakness to this assessment meth-
od is that it is typically not comprehensive. New methods for assess-
ment are being developed constantly, and advances in self-report
scales are vital in the progression of the eld (Hayes, Barlow, &
Nelson-Gray, 1999).
1.5. Self-report measures in assessing PSA
Measuring public speaking anxiety without the use of self-report
measures can be complex. Physiological measures of anxiety tend to
be difcult to administer and interpret for novice researchers and clini-
cians, in that their indices often fall outside of the normal sphere of
training for clinicians (Dietrich & Roaman, 2001). In addition, behavioral
manifestations of anxiety are difcult to assess, in that observational
training and mastery of complex data coding strategies require excessive
time and commitment on the part of those involved (Barlow, Nock, &
Hersen, 2009). Because of these factors, self-report measures of anxiety
are vital and necessary.
Many scales have been developed in order to assess PSA, but these
are replete with limitations. Most scales focus on a single aspect of anx-
iety, such as cognitive manifestations (e.g., SATI; Cho, Smits, & Tech,
2004; AAS; Leary, 1983; SSPS; Hofmann & DiBartolo, 2000). Few scales
measure the three-component (cognitive, behavioral, and physio-
logical) model of anxiety described by Lang (1971). Some scales that
do assess the three-component model include the Personal Report of
Condence as a Speaker (PRCS; Gilkinson, 1942; Paul, 1966) and the
Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA; McCroskey, 1970).
However, these scales have serious limitations. The PRCS (104-, 30-, and
12-item versions) utilizes a truefalse format. A major drawback of the
longer versions of this scale is that they require extensive time to com-
plete. However, a shorter version of this scale (i.e., PRCS-12; Hook,
Smith, & Valentiner, 2008) lacks utility because of the insensitivity of
the measure. Although the PRPSA does offer more choice in responding
than the PRCS, this scale requires extensive time to complete, with the
scale including over 30 items.
In addition, many of the items on these scales are worded either
positively or negatively (e.g., PRCS-12; SATI). Although this can result
in clean factor loadings and increased internal consistency, acquies-
cence can be a side effect and its impact can be insidious (Miller,
Lovler, & McIntire, 2013). By having both positively and negatively
worded items, researchers are able to determine if participants are tak-
ing the study seriously and reduce response bias.
Therefore, a brief scale (i.e., less than 20 items) that allows for a wide
range of responses would be convenient for research within the public
speaking anxiety domain. This scale would benet research by provid-
ing a psychometrically sound instrument that can provide good data
for both diagnostic and tracking purposes. In addition, a scale of this
type would prove to be an important clinical tool to be used in diagnos-
ing public speaking anxiety and tracking the treatment of this condition.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants included 375 undergraduate students enrolled in
psychology courses. Participants were recruited via the SONA Sys-
tem at a public university in a Midwestern metropolitan area. Sona
( ) assists in managing scheduling, recruitment, and
the distribution of extra credit to students who participate in re-
search. Recruitment for this study occurred to ensure that the min-
imum number of participants with complete data required to run
factor analyses was retained. Although there is some discrepancy
in the literature regarding the appropriate number of participants
required, most researchers agree that 300 participants are adequate
(e.g., Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Students were
given two points of extra credit for completion of the study, which
they received even if they skipped questions or discontinued the
survey at any point. Participants completed the survey online
using Qualtrics. Twenty-four individuals were excluded from analy-
ses due to less than 50% completion. Gender makeup of the sample
was 18.7% men and 81.3% women. Students' year in school was var-
iable with a majority of students reporting being in their fourth year
(N = 126), followed by rst (N = 110), third (N = 68), second
(N = 61), and beyond fourth year (N = 9). A majority of students
reported being Caucasian (83.5%), followed by African American
(4.3%), Asian American (3.5%), Hispanic (2.4%), and other/biracial
(6.1%).
2.2. Procedures
Participants answered questions regarding their demographic infor-
mation and completed a variety of measures in order to assess reliability
and validity of a new scale for speech anxiety, the Public Speaking
Anxiety Scale (PSAS). This scale was developed to assess the three-
component model of anxiety (cognitive, behavioral, and physiological)
as described by Lang (1971). Items for this scale were selected by revis-
ing and rewording items from numerous other public speaking anxiety
scales. Additional items were created by assessing the overall manifes-
tation of public speaking anxiety in order to produce a comprehensive
measure of speech anxiety. The initial version of this scale yielded 17
total questions encompassing the three components of anxiety (cogni-
tive, 8 items; behavioral, 4 items; and physiological, 5 items).
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Public Speaking Anxiety Scale
The purpose of the PSAS is twofold: to assess and track public speak-
ing anxiety through multiple properties (e.g., behavioral, cognitive, and
physiological). The PSAS is a 17-item self-report measure with re-
sponses measured in a Likert-format with score ranging from 1 not at
all to 5 extremely. Scores on this scale can range from 17 to 85.
There are ve items on this scale that are reverse coded.1 Descriptive
statistics for the item and overall scale are presented in Table 1.
2.3.2. Personal report of condence as a speaker-12
The PRCS-12 is a shortened form of the original scale developed by
Gilkinson in 1942 which was meant to assess behavioral and affective
indicators of anxiety (Hook et al., 2008). Questions on this scale are
measured in a truefalse format, with scores ranging from 0 to 12. Inter-
nal consistency of this scale with the current sample was good ( =
.886).
2.3.3. Survey of speech anxiety
The SSA is a 6-item scale meant to measure tension and disorganiza-
tion associated with speech anxiety (Slivken & Buss, 1984). Questions
on this scale are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging
from 0 to 30. Internal consistency of this scale was good, with Cronbach's
alpha = .876.
1
For all analyses, the ve reverse coded items were used in place of the original items
administered to participants. In this manuscript the only place that information from the
original (not reverse coded) scale is in Table 1, where descriptive statistics for the scale
are presented.
 E.M. Bartholomay, D.D. Houlihan / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 211215 213

Table 1 Table 2
Descriptive statistics for the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale. Percentile scores for the PSAS (N = 366).

Items Mean SD Measure Score

1. Giving a speech is terrifying 3.08 1.20 Percentiles 10 31

2. I am afraid that I will be at a loss for words while speaking 3.01 1.19 20 38
3. I am nervous that I will embarrass myself in front of the audience 3.20 1.26 30 43
4. If I make a mistake in my speech, I am unable to re-focus 2.61 1.16 40 48
5. I am worried that my audience will think I am a bad speaker 3.00 1.31 50 52.5
6. I am focused on what I am saying during my speech* 3.61 1.13 60 57
7. I am condent when I give a speech* 2.46 1.31 70 60
8. I feel satised after giving a speech* 3.08 1.39 80 64
9. My hands shake when I give a speech 2.96 1.31 90 71
10. I feel sick before speaking in front of a group 2.51 1.36 94a 73
11. I feel tense before giving a speech 3.23 1.26 100 84
12. I dget before speaking 3.08 1.28
Note. Scores on this measure range from 17 to 85.
13. My heart pounds when I give a speech 3.38 1.28 a
The 94th percentile is reported to be consistent with social anxiety prevalence rates.
14. I sweat during my speech 2.68 1.34
15. My voice trembles when I give a speech 2.69 1.31
16. I feel relaxed while giving a speech* 1.64 1.00
17. I do not have problems making eye contact with my audience* 2.84 1.22
Overall scale (once starred items have been reverse-coded) 51.55 14.79
3.2. Distribution of scores

Note. 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very, 5 = extremely.

Reverse-coded.
2.3.4. Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
The SIAS (Mattick & Clarke, 1998) is a 19-item scale intended to
measure levels of anxiety in hypothetical social situations. Items on
this scale are measured on a 5-point Likert scale with scores ranging
from 19 to 95. Two of the items on this scale are reverse coded, and
the internal consistency of the scale in this sample was high ( = .932).
2.3.5. Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale
The IUS (Buhr & Dugas, 2002) is a 27-item scale used to assess in-
tolerance of uncertainty often associated with generalized anxiety.
This scale is rated on a 5-point Likert scale with scores ranging from
27 to 135. The internal consistency of the scale with this sample was
high with Cronbach's alpha = .957.
The mean from this sample was 51.55 (SD = 14.79). Percentiles for
the overall scale are presented in Table 2. The range of the sample for
this scale at 17 to 84, suggesting that the scale is sensitive and can be uti-
lized effectively to track changes in PSA severity over time.
The distribution of scores for this sample followed that of a normal
distribution (see Fig. 1). This is consistent with previous literature,
which has found that public speaking anxiety tends to follow a normal
curve, with the majority of individuals reporting some anxiety with
few individuals having scores near the very top or very bottom of the
possible range of scores (McCroskey, 1970). Although ceiling effects
may be common in scales used to measure anxiety (e.g., McLean &
Hope, 2010; Page, Hooke, & Morrison, 2007; Wolpert, Cheng, &
Deighton, 2015), the lack of a ceiling effect or oor effect in this sample
suggests that this scale may be used to truly distinguish PSA levels.

2.3.6. Depression questionnaire

The DQ (Friberg & Borrero, 2000) is a 15-item scale used to measure
clinical depression. Items on this scale are rated 1 for yes and 0 for
no, with scores ranging from 0 to 15. The internal consistency of this
scale was fair ( = .793).

2.3.7. Wessex Dissociation Scale

The WDS (Kennedy et al., 2004) is a 40-item measure used to
assess dissociative symptoms associated with various forms of psy-
chopathology. This scale is rated on a 6-point Likert scale with
scores ranging from 0 to 200. The internal consistency of this scale
was high, with Cronbach's alpha = .960.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic characteristics

Demographic variables were assessed in relation to overall PSAS

scores. There was no signicant difference in overall PSAS score by
race, F(4, 360) = 1.84, p = .12, or year in school, F(4, 360) = 1.48,
p = .21. However, results did indicate a signicant difference in anxiety
between males and females, such that females (M = 53.30, SD = 14.97)
report higher levels of public speaking anxiety than males (M = 43.88,
SD = 11.20), F(1, 364) = 23.87, p b .001. This nding is consistent with
previous literature, suggesting that females report higher levels of anx-
iety than males, with 3 females reporting an anxiety disorder for every 2 Fig. 1. Distribution of Public Speaking Anxiety Scale scores with normal curve distribution
males reporting a disorder (Kessler et al., 1994). overlay.
214 E.M. Bartholomay, D.D. Houlihan / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 211215
Table 3
Factor loadings for the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
1. Giving a speech is terrifying .783
2. I am afraid that I will be at a loss for words while speaking .777
3. I am nervous that I will embarrass myself in front of the .770
audience
4. If I make a mistake in my speech, I am unable to re-focus .690
5. I am worried that my audience will think I am a bad speaker .735
6. I am focused on what I am saying during my speech a
.082
7. I am condent when I give a speecha .478
8. I feel satised after giving a speecha .281
9. My hands shake when I give a speech .743
10. I feel sick before speaking in front of a group .744
11. I feel tense before giving a speech .811
12. I dget before speaking .803
13. My heart pounds when I give a speech .824
14. I sweat during my speech .736
15. My voice trembles when I give a speech .757
16. I feel relaxed while giving a speecha .519
17. I do not have problems making eye contact with my .185
audience a treatment outcomes. The ftieth percentile was a score of 52.5, just over
Note. Numbers in bold are loadings of .5 or higher. Only item 16 had a noteworthy
cross-loading for this sample.
a
Items are reverse-coded.
3.3. Factor structure
The Public Speaking Anxiety Scale was found to have high internal
consistency, with Cronbach's alpha = .938. In order to further analyze
the scale, a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation
was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure. Results of
this analysis indicated two signicant factors, with the general differ-
ence being positively versus negatively worded items. Furthermore,
this analysis explained 59.95% of the variance in responding. Factor
loadings of items are presented in Table 3.2 The only item with a note-
worthy cross-loading was item 16. Although this item loaded slightly
more heavily on the rst factor, we consider this nding to be an artifact.
Removing this item from the rst factor results in no change in reliability
( = .947), suggesting that this item is not essential to this factor. How-
ever, when one removes this item from the second factor, Cronbach's
alpha is seriously depleted, with the original reliability estimate ( =
.712) being much higher the second ( = .649).
3.4. Three-component model
Reliability analyses were calculated for the three subscales of this
measure to be consistent with Lang's (1971) 3-component model of
anxiety. The cognitive subscale, which includes scale items 18, was
found to have high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha of .881.
The behavioral subscale (items 9, 12, 15, and 17) has slightly lower inter-
nal consistency ( = .747), and the physiological subscale (items 10, 11,
13, 14, and 16) has high internal consistency as well ( = .867).
3.5. Validity
Table 4 presents intercorrelations between all measures. As displayed
in this table, the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale was highly correlated with
the other measures of speech anxiety indicating good concurrent validity
(r = .835.845). In addition, these correlations were all signicant at the
p b .001 level. Similarly, the PSAS had moderate to high correlations with
other measures of anxiety, suggesting good convergent validity (r =
.350.511). In addition, the PSAS had weaker correlations with measures
2
Although a purpose of this scale was to develop a self-report instrument that effective-
ly measures the three components of anxiety, a PCFA with a 2 factor solution was deemed
the best t. A 3 factor solution resulted in items failing to load on factors, lower factor load-
ings, and unclear factor themes. For these reasons, the 2-factor solution is the best model.
of depressive symptoms and dissociative symptoms, indicating discrimi-
nant validity (r = .136.180). Furthermore, these correlations had higher
p values (p = .001 and .011) than the measure of concurrent and conver-
.350
gent validity. The validity of this measure is apparent by examining the
.282 differences in effect size among measures for concurrent, convergent,
.242 and discriminant validity, and it is strengthened by the corresponding
changes in p-values.
.272
.283
.688 4. Discussion
.696
.683 4.1. Implications
.115
.176
.228
In this study, we were able to construct a psychometrically sound
.078 measure of public speaking anxiety. This scale was deemed to have
.155 high internal consistency, high concurrent validity, and good conver-
.127 gent and discriminant validity. In addition, participants utilized the
.244
full range of scores, suggesting that this measure is adequate to measure
.462
.542 various levels of speech anxiety and may, in fact, be sensitive in tracking
the scale midpoint (51) and mean (51.5), indicating that, on average,
individuals experience moderate levels of public speaking anxiety.
Consistent with prior research estimates regarding prevalence rates
of PSA (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1995), a score of 64 (80th percentile, top
30% of the range of scores) on the PSAS suggests the presence of elevat-
ed levels of public speaking anxiety. As a more conservative measure,
and to be consistent with DSM estimates of prevalence rates, a cutoff
score of 73 (top 25% of the range) could be used to diagnose signicant
and impairing public speaking anxiety (see Table 2). Although there
is some discord as to what constitutes signicant public speaking anxi-
ety and whether or not a diagnosis is appropriate, self-report scales are
often sensitive enough to classify individuals who are borderline or
at-risk for developing a diagnosable condition and may, thus, benet
from early intervention. In fact, according to Hofmann, Ehlers, and
Roth (1995), the majority of individuals with PSA experience panic at-
tacks and traumatic experiences after the onset of their disorders if
not treated adequately and effectively. For these reasons, early interven-
tion for public speaking anxiety is vital in the prevention of future neg-
ative outcomes from anxiety.
The results of this study suggest that internet-based methods of as-
sessment may be used to effectively measure public speaking anxiety.
This is clinically relevant as it could reduce patient wait times in clinical
settings as well as ensure that clients are lling out relevant measures
before sessions. In addition, this would facilitate post-treatment data
collection, as clients could ll out this information post-visit and with-
out undue inuence that clients may feel when lling this scale out in
a clinical setting. Similar effects may be obtained in research settings.
Although a plethora of research is done via the internet, administration
of a scale of this nature via the internet could be used as a screening meth-
od to bring in potential participants for psychological treatment.
4.2. Limitations and future research
This study is not without limitations. First, a convenience sample of
college students was used in place of a random sample of adults.
Although much psychology research utilizes this sample, it is conceiv-
able that these results would be different in using a sample more repre-
sentative of the overall population. In addition, the demographics of this
sample are not representative. This study included an overwhelmingly
female (81%) population, which may produce different results than
would a sample with more representative demographic characteristics.
Samples in future studies should be more representative, including a
wider range of ages, more equal and representative racial and ethnic
distribution, and a more gender-representative sample. Another imitation
is that this scale was only administered to a community sample, lacking
data from individuals diagnosed with public speaking anxiety. Although
score percentiles suggest cutoff scores for individuals experiencing
 E.M. Bartholomay, D.D. Houlihan / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 211215
Table 4
Intercorrelations on measures of public speaking anxiety, social anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, depressive symptoms, and dissociative symptoms.
Validity Measure Correlations (Pearson's r)
PSAS PRCS-12
Concurrent PRCS-12 .843
SSA .835 .828
Convergent SIAS .511 .520
IUS .350 .377
Discriminant DQ .18 .266
WDS .136 .219
Abbreviations: PSAS, Public Speaking Anxiety Scale; PRCS, Personal Report of Condence as a Speaker; SSA, Survey of Speech Anxiety; SIAS, Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; IUS, Intolerance of
Uncertainty Scale; DQ, Depression Questionnaire; WDS, Wessex Dissociation Scale.
Correlation is signicant at the .001 level.
Correlation is signicant at the .05 level.
signicant public speaking anxiety, because data was not collected from a
clinical sample, we are unable to effectively infer how individuals with
PSA may score on the PSAS.
More research is needed in order to further assess and replicate the
psychometric data of this scale. Future research should employ conr-
matory factor analyses in order to determine if the two-factor solution
(positively and negatively worded items) is the most appropriate solu-
tion or if some other iteration, for example the three-component model,
produces a more appropriate model t. Additionally, testretest reliability
should be assessed in future studies in order to test the ability to consis-
tently measure public speaking anxiety.
In order to determine clinical utility of the PSAS, this measure should
be administered to individuals diagnosed with social anxiety and public
speaking anxiety. This would be useful in determining an appropriate
cutoff score for diagnosing PSA with this scale. Although these numbers
were alluded to in the results section, this scale should be administered
to individuals who have previously been diagnosed with public speaking
anxiety.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Antony, M. M., Orsillo, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2001). Practitioner's guide to empirically based
measures of anxiety. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies
for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (2001). Public speaking arousal as a function of anticipatory
activation and autonomic reactivity. Communication Reports, 14(2), 7385.
Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2007). Shy children, phobic adults: Nature and treatment of so-
cial anxiety disorder (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Dancu, C. V. (1985). Physiological, cognitive, and behavioral
aspects of social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(2), 109117.
Blume, B. D., Dreher, G. F., & Baldwin, T. T. (2010). Examining the effects of communication
apprehension within assessment centres. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 663671.
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). Intolerance of uncertainty scaleEnglish version [database
record] (Retreieved from PsycTESTS) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t01560-000.
Cho, Y., Smits, J. A. J., & Tech, M. J. (2004). The speech anxiety thoughts inventory: Scale
development and preliminary psychometric data. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
42, 1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00067-6.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A rst course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dietrich, S., & Roaman, M. H. (2001). Physiological arousal and predictions of anxiety by
people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 207225.
Gilkinson, H. (1942). Social fears reported by students in college speech classes. Speech
Monographs, 9, 131160.
215
SSA SIAS IUS DQ WDS
.596
.376 .607
.159 .311 .428
.176 .357 .430 .548
Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1999). The scientist practitioner: Research
and accountability in the age of managed care. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hofmann, S. G., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2000). An instrument to assess self-statements during
public speaking: Scale development and preliminary psychometric properties.
Behavior Therapy, 31, 499515.
Hofmann, S. G., Ehlers, A., & Roth, W. T. (1995). Conditioning theory: A model for the eti-
ology of public speaking anxiety? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(5), 567571.
Hook, J. N., Smith, C. A., & Valentiner, D. P. (2008). A short-form of the personal report of
condence as a speaker. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 13061313. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.021.
Kennedy, F., Clarke, S., Stopa, L., Bell, L., Rouse, H., Ainsworth, C., ... Waller, G. (2004). Wessex
Dissociation Scale [database record] (Retrieved from PsycTESTS) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
t14106-000.
Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C. B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S., ... Kendler,
K. S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in
the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 51, 819.
Lang, P. J. (1971). The application of psychophysiological methods to the study of psycho-
therapy ad behavior modication. In A. E. Bergin, & S. L. Gareld (Eds.), Handbook of
psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 75125). New York, NY: Wiley.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 47(1), 6676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4701_8.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Social Interaction Anxiety Scale [database record]
(Retrieved from PsycTESTS) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t00532-000.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs,
37(4), 269277.
McCullough, S. C., Russell, S. G., Behnke, R. R., Sawyer, C. R., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Anticipa-
tory public speaking state anxiety as a function of body sensations and state of mind.
Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 101109.
McLean, C. P., & Hope, D. A. (2010). Subjective anxiety and behavioral avoidance: Gender,
gender role, and perceived conrmability of self-report. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
24, 494502.
Miller, L. A., Lovler, R. L., & McIntire, S. A. (2013). Foundations of psychological testing: A
practical approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Page, A. C., Hooke, G. R., & Morrison, D. L. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Depres-
sion Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in depressed clinical samples. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 46, 283297.
Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight vs desensitization in psychotherapy. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Rodriguez-Seijas, C., Eaton, N. P., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). How transdiagnostic factors of
personality and psychopathology can inform clinical assessment and intervention.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(5), 425435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2015.1055752.
Slivken, K. E., & Buss, A. H. (1984). Misattribution and speech anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 396402.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Wolpert, M., Cheng, H., & Deighton, J. (2015). Measurement issues: Review of four patient
reported outcome measures: SDQ, RCADS, C/ORS, and GBOtheir strengths and lim-
itations for clinical use and service evaluation. Child and Adolescent Mental Health,
20(1), 6370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/camh.12065.