Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2006, Vol. 35, No.

4, 590597

Copyright 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Parental Assessment of Childhood Social Phobia: Psychometric Properties of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for ChildrenParent Report
Charmaine K. Higa
Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Shantel N. Fernandez
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa

Brad J. Nakamura and Bruce F. Chorpita

Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Eric L. Daleiden
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division, Hawaii Department of Health Validity and parent-child agreement of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for ChildrenParent Report (SPAICP) were examined in a racially diverse sample of 158 students in Grades 5 through 8 (87 girls; ages 10 to 14; M = 11.53) and their caregivers. Children completed the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAIC), and caregivers completed the SPAICP and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The SPAICP demonstrated good internal consistency and was significantly correlated with child self-reported social anxiety. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 3-factor model over a 5-factor model, and concurrent validity was evidenced. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Social phobia (SP), a marked and persistent fear of social or performance situations, is exhibited in 3 to 4% of children (Beidel, Turner, & Morris, 1999). The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAIC; Beidel, Turner, & Morris, 1995), an empirically derived self-report instrument designed to assess childhood SP as reflected in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), was developed to help identify SP and measure treatment gains in children and adolescents. Children rate subjective distress in anxiety-producing situations, measuring somatic, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of SP. Beidel and colleagues (1995) initially reported a three-factor model of the SPAIC in a pure clinical
This research was supported in part by a student grant awarded to Charmaine K. Higa from the Office of Research at the University of Tulsa. This research was conducted at and supported by the University of Tulsa. Charmaine K. Higa is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa. We thank the teachers and staff who facilitated the success of this research as well as the following research assistants: River Smith, Anna Reiners, Charleen Ludden Marlow, Amy Johnson, Stephanie Dodge, Deana Victor-Frederick, Samantha Richardson, Tara Thornhill, and Robert Shimabuku. Correspondence should be addressed to Charmaine K. Higa, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2430 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822. E-mail: higac@hawaii.edu

sample: (a) Assertiveness/General Conversation, (b) Traditional Social Encounters, and (c) Public Performance. In a subsequent study they found support for five factors in a mixed clinical and nonclinical sample: (a) Assertiveness, (b) General Conversation, (c) Physical and Cognitive Symptoms, (d) Avoidance, and (e) Public Performance (Beidel, Turner, & Fink, 1996). Although the number of factors is not the same, the general constructs that emerged were similar across the models (see Figure 1). The difference is that whereas most items on the Traditional Social Encounters factor in the first study are shared with the Physical and Cognitive Symptoms and Avoidance factors in the second, they grouped together for different underlying reasons. In the first solution, items clustered around social situations, whereas in the second, items grouped based on reaction to the social situation (for factor loadings see Beidel, Turner, & Morris, 1998). Another research team recently found support for the five-factor model in an adolescent community sample (Storch, Masia-Warner, Dent, Roberti, & Fisher, 2004). However, because a comparative test of the three-factor model was not conducted, it is unclear which model would have provided the better fit. Thus, definitive factor structure of the SPAIC remains undetermined. Although the SPAIC was originally developed in a mixed racial sample of children diagnosed with SP, 590

SPAIC PARENT REPORT

Figure 1.

Three- and five-factor models of the SPAICP. SPAICP = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for ChildrenParent Report.

studies examining the factor structure of the instrument have been in samples that were primarily White (Beidel et al., 1996, 1995; Storch et al., 2004). Information does exist about the scores obtained by different racial groups on the SPAIC. For example, one study found that White children scored significantly higher than African American children (Beidel, Turner, Hamlin, & Morris, 2000). Only two studies reported examining the SPAIC in Asian children (Morris & Masia, 1998; Storch et al., 2004), but samples were too small to examine group differences (4% and 2%, respectively). Another study on a different self-report instrument (Revised Childrens Anxiety and Depression Scales) found that Chinese and Filipino American children scored significantly higher on SP than White children (Austin & Chorpita, 2004). Studies specifically examining the factor structure of the SPAIC were in samples that were primarily White (83% in Beidel et al., 1995; 76% in Beidel et al., 1996; 85% in Storch et al., 2004). Taken together, although Asian children scored higher than White children and White children scored higher than African American children, there is no evidence to suggest that the structure of SP as measured by the SPAIC would be different in children from diverse racial backgrounds.

Although it is common practice to use multiple informants in child assessment, until recently, measures specifically assessing SP by parents have not been available. On the other hand, a number of measures examining child anxiety have a parent-report version that mirrors the child version (e.g., Cole, Hoffman, Tram, & Maxwell, 2000; Nauta et al., 2004; Silverman & Nelles, 1989). To date, only a few studies have examined the psychometric properties of these parent adaptations. For example, Cole and colleagues found a similar but not equivalent factor structure between parent and child report versions of the Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). Similarly, confirmatory factor analysis of the Spence Childrens Anxiety Scale (Spence, 1998) indicated corresponding factor structures between parent and child versions (Nauta et al., 2004). More such studies are needed to move the field toward multisource assessment procedures. The parent report version of the SPAIC (SPAICP) was developed to address this need (Beidel et al., 2000). Beidel and colleagues reported that in 55 parentchild dyads (40 children diagnosed with SP and 15 nonanxious controls) studied, the SPAICP significantly correlated with child self-report (SPAIC; r = 591

HIGA ET AL.

.31). No other information on the psychometric properties of the SPAICP was reported. Thus, little is currently known about its reliability, validity, and factor structure. This study represents an initial psychometric examination of the SPAICP. Based on past research on the SPAIC (Beidel et al., 1996, 2000, 1995), it was hypothesized that (a) confirmatory factor analysis of the SPAICP would support either a three- or five-factor model, (b) the SPAICP would demonstrate internal consistency, (c) SPAICP scores would significantly correlate with child self-reported social anxiety, and (d) the SPAICP would significantly correlate with other measures of child anxiety and negative affect and not with measures of externalizing problems as reported by parents.

Method Seven hundred sixty-five children from six public schools in Hawaii County were recruited. Of 388 consent forms returned, 176 caregivers consented to participate of which 158 children (87 girls; ages 10 to 14; M = 11.53, SD = 1.14) and their caregivers (ages 27 to 63; M = 38.65, SD = 7.23) had complete data on the SPAIC and SPAICP. Forty-four percent identified as multiracial, 28% as biracial, 17% as Asian, 6% as White, 3% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 1% as African American, and 1% as Hispanic. Grade level ranged from 5 to 8 (M = 6.06, SD = .97). Eighty percent of caregivers were mothers, 12% were fathers, 1% were other types of caretakers (e.g., grandparent), and 7% did not report relationship. Twenty-nine percent of caregivers identified as Asian, 27% as multiethnic, 26% as biracial, 13% as White, 2% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 1% as African American, and 1% as Hispanic; 1% did not report ethnicity. Caretakers categorized gross annual household income into one of the following: (a) $0 to $14,999 (20.9%), (b) $15,000 to $29,999 (16.5%), (c) $30,000 to $44,999 (13.3%), (d) $45,000 to $59,999 (8.9%), (e) $60,000 to $74,999 (3.8%), and (f) $75,000 and up (5.1%); 31.6% did not report income. No systematic differences in participation rates were identified by race or income.1 Measures included (a) the SPAIC (Beidel et al., 1998), (b) the SPAICP (Beidel et al., 2000), and (c) the Parent Report Form of the CBCL (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The SPAIC is a 26-item self-report instrument of SP and anxiety in children ages 8 to 14. Children rate how often they feel anxious in certain situations on a 3-point Likert scale of 0 (never or hardly ever), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (most of the time or always). The SPAIC has demonstrated 2-week (r = .86) and
1Analyses are not reported for brevity but are available from Charmaine K. Higa.

10-month testretest reliability (r = .63) and internal consistency (Cronbachs = .95; Beidel et al., 1995). It has also demonstrated convergent validity with another self-report measure of social anxiety (Social Anxiety Scale for ChildrenRevised, r = .63; Morris & Masia, 1998), self-report measures of anxiety (StateTrait Anxiety Inventory for Children, r = .50; Fear Survey Schedule for ChildrenRevised, r = .53; Beidel et al., 1995), and parent reports of internalizing problems (CBCL Internalizing scale, r = .45). Moreover, the SPAIC has successfully discriminated children diagnosed with SP from normal controls (Beidel et al., 1995), from children with externalizing disorders (Beidel et al., 1996), and from children with other anxiety disorders (Beidel et al., 2000) and has demonstrated external validity with an independent evaluators behavioral ratings of social skills (Beidel et al., 2000). The SPAICP is a 26-item parent-report instrument assessing SP and anxiety in children ages 8 to 14. It is identical to the SPAIC, except the stem of each item starts with, My child feels scared rather than I feel scared Parents rate on a 3-point Likert scale of 0 (never or hardly ever), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (most of the time or always) how often their children feel anxious in certain situations. Examining the psychometric properties of the SPAICP is the focus of this investigation. The CBCL is a 113-item parent-report measure for children ages 6 to 18 years. It provides broadband (Internalizing and Externalizing) and narrowband (Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Aggressive, and Rule-Breaking) scales. The CBCL has demonstrated internal consistency ( = .97 total), testretest reliability (1-week r = .94; 1-year r = .81; 2-year r = .80), and convergent and construct validity (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Consent forms, parent report measures (randomized order), and a demographic form were sent home to caregivers. Once parental consent and child assent were obtained, children were administered the measures individually during a free period in school or after school hours.

Results and Discussion Preliminary Analyses Preliminary analyses did not reveal multivariate outliers, and direct maximum likelihood methods were used to handle data that was missing at random. Descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 1. Consistent with previous findings on the SPAIC in nonclinical samples (Beidel et al., 2000; Morris & Masia, 1998; Storch et al., 2004), girls scored significantly higher than boys by both self and parent report (see Table 1). Additionally, children in our diverse sample scored slightly higher (M = 15.2) on the SPAIC than children in other normal

592

SPAIC PARENT REPORT

Table 1. Sample Descriptive Statistics on All Measures

Overall Measure SPAICP AG/C TSE PP SPAIC CBCL INT EXT A/D W/D RB AG n 158 158 158 158 158 108 139 125 150 150 147 130 M 10.3 4.2 1.5 3.9 15.2 21.5 6.1 8.0 2.8 1.8 2.2 5.7 SD 8.0 3.4 1.8 3.2 8.7 18.6 5.9 8.5 2.7 2.3 2.9 5.9 .93 .88 .79 .87 .93 .95 .84 .93 .69 .75 .78 .91 n 84 84 84 84 84 57 72 67 80 78 77 69 Females M 11.8 4.9 1.7 4.2 17.1 22.5 6.5 8.0 3.1 1.8 2.1 5.8 SD 8.1 3.5 1.8 3.1 9.1 17.8 5.8 7.6 2.9 2.3 2.3 5.5 .93 .88 .75 .86 .93 .93 .84 .91 .73 .75 .69 .89 n 74 74 74 74 74 51 67 58 70 72 70 61 M 8.7 3.3 1.2 3.5 12.9 20.3 5.6 8.0 2.4 1.7 2.4 5.7 Males SD 7.6 3.0 1.8 3.3 7.6 19.5 5.4 9.5 2.4 2.3 3.4 6.4 .93 .87 .83 .89 .91 .96 .83 .94 .62 .74 .82 .93 t Test t(df) 2.50(156) 3.20(156) 1.90(156) 2.00(156) 3.20(156) 0.60(106) 0.90(137) 0.10(123) 1.60(148) 0.50(148) 0.70(145) 0.14(128) p <.01 <.01 <.01 .06 <.01 .54 .37 .96 .12 .65 .50 .89

Note: SPAICP = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for ChildrenParent Report; AG/C = SPAICP Assertiveness/General Conversation from the final model; TSE = SPAICP Traditional Social Encounters from the final model; PP = SPAICP Public Performance from the final model; SPAIC = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (Child Report); CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; INT = CBCL Internalizing; EXT = CBCL Externalizing; A/D = CBCL Anxious/Depressed; W/D = CBCL Withdrawn/Depressed; RB = CBCL Rule Breaking; AG = CBCL Aggressive.

control (M range = 5.7 to 11.4; Beidel et al., 1996) and community based (M = 14.0 and 14.7; Epkins, 2002; Morris & Masia, 1998) samples, providing additional support for the notion that Asian children report more social distress than children from other racial groups. However, as these differences were negligible to moderate, caution should be used when interpreting these findings. Because Beidel and colleagues (2000) reported aggregated mean scores for socially phobic and normal controls on the parent-report version of the SPAIC (M = 22.23), we were unable to meaningfully compare scores from our community sample.

able fit, and values at or below 0.05 represent good fit. An inferential test for close fit (defined as RMSEA < .05) was also employed, with a nonsignificant result (p > .05) suggesting good model fit (Cfit; Browne & Cudek, 1993). The AIC was included because of its utility for evaluating nonnested models. Lower AIC values represent better model fit. Finally, modification indexes (Srbom, 1989) were used to examine fit more closely to determine possible sources of lack of fit. Given that the literature has supported both a threeand a five-factor model of the SPAIC (Beidel et al., 1996, 1995; Storch et al., 2004), it was hypothesized that either a three- or five-factor model would emerge on the parent report version. Five-factor models. The first model tested a five-factor solution using Beidel and colleagues (1996) scale definitions. Model fit statistics appear in Table 2 and suggest modest model fit. All latent factor intercorrelations were statistically significantly (see Table 3). Completely standardized factor loadings of indicators (i.e., items) on their latent variables ranged from .13 to .90. All path coefficients were statistically significant except for Item 3 on the General Conversation factor (Scared when with others and has to do something while they watch). The model specified that this item also loaded on the Public Performance factor, and this latter coefficient was statistically significant (factor loading = .65). Additionally, Item 16 (Scared when speaking in front of others) only narrowly reached statistical significance with a factor loading of .32 on the General Conversation factor but demonstrated statistical significance and a factor loading of .50 on the Public Performance factor. Given that these two items were the only items that loaded on more than one factor in Beidel et al.s (1996) 593

Structural Validity Factor analytical strategy. Factor structure of the SPAICP was evaluated using LISREL 8.7. Because different fit indexes are sensitive to unique artifactual influences (e.g., chi-square fit index increases with sample size), multiple fit indexes were used to provide a more conservative and reliable evaluation. These indexes included the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993) and the standardized root mean square residual (RMR; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993), which test the absolute fit of the model, the Incremental Fit Index (IFI; Bentler, 1990), which tests the fit of the model relative to a fully orthogonal independence model, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), which evaluates the model relative to degrees of freedom, and Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987), which is the model 2 plus 2 times the number of parameters. Conventionally, scores of .90 and above on the GFI and the IFI and scores below .05 on the RMR represent good model fit. Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggested that RMSEA values at or below 0.08 represent accept-

HIGA ET AL.

Table 2. Fit Statistics for Structural Models

Model Five-Factor A Five-Factor B Five-Factor C Four-Factor Three-Factor A Three-Factor B Three-Factor C Two-Factor One-Factor 2 570.58 574.99 517.92 530.19 594.13 607.37 481.38 500.93 612.19 df 218 220 218 219 221 227 224 225 226 p <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 AIC 671.77 675.82 623.97 627.01 662.61 668.81 551.93 570.02 781.81 RMSEA 0.099 0.100 0.092 0.092 0.098 0.098 0.080 0.083 0.110 Cfit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GFI 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.80 0.79 0.73 IFI 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93 RMR 0.097 0.096 0.088 0.089 0.079 0.076 0.068 0.071 0.081

Note: df = degrees of freedom for chi square; p = statistical significance for chi square; AIC = Akaikes Information Criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; Cfit = test for close fit (RMSEA < .05); GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMR = standardized root mean square residual; Five-Factor A = Full five-factor model based on Beidel et al. (1996); Five-Factor B = Five-Factor A with Items 3 and 16 loading on only one factor each; Five-Factor C = Five-Factor B allowing for correlated error between Items 21 and 24 and 25 and 26; Four-Factor = Five-Factor C, collapsing factors 1 (Assertiveness) and 2 (General Conversation); Three-Factor A = Full three-factor model based on Beidel et al. (1995); Three-Factor B = Three-Factor A with Items 2, 9, 17, 19, 24, and 25 loading on only one factor each; Three-Factor C = Three-Factor B allowing for correlated error between Items 19 and 20, 21 and 24 and 25 and 26; Two-Factor = Three-Factor C, collapsing factors 1 (Assertiveness/General Conversation) and 2 (Traditional Social Encounters); One-Factor = Three-Factor C, collapsing all factors (Assertiveness/General Conversation, Traditional Social Encounters, and General Conversation). Model in bold was retained as best fitting full model.

Table 3. Latent Factor Intercorrelations for Five- and Three-Factor Models

Five-Factor Models AS A GC PCS AV PP TSE PP .89 .57 .70 .72 B .87 .57 .70 .78 C .87 .69 .69 .78 A .65 .82 .81 GC B .65 .80 .86 C .78 .80 .86 A PCS B C A AV B C A Three-Factor Models A/GC B C A TSE B C

.64 .32

.64 .38

.75 .46

.46

.54

.54 .77 .78 .77 .78 .83 .78 .53 .53 .58

Note: AS = Assertiveness; GC = General Conversation; PCS = Physical and Cognitive Symptoms; AV = Avoidance; PP = Public Performance; AG/C = Assertiveness/General Conversation; TSE = Traditional Social Encounters.

scale definitions and that they both performed poorly on the General Conversation factor but adequately on the Public Performance factor, a revised five-factor model was tested for model fit that specified the removal of these two weaker loadings such that they only loaded on the Public Performance factor (see Five-Factor B in Table 2). In this model, although the standardized RMR decreased slightly, the AIC and RMSEA increased. The 2 also increased but not significantly, 2diff(2) = 4.4, p > .05. The Cfit, GFI, and IFI remained the same. An examination of the modification indexes for theta-delta indicated that Items 21 and 24 and Items 25 and 26 shared substantial correlated error (41.64 and 44.73, respectively). In other words, these items appeared to be highly correlated with each other because the content was similar and because of a measurement phenomomenon. Specifically, Items 21 and 24 ask about thoughts their child has regarding social situations, and both have a single stem with multiple possible cognitions (e.g., Will I make a mistake and look stupid? What if somebody talks to me and I 594

cant think of what to say?). Items 25 and 26 share a similar structure but probe about somatic symptoms related to social situations (e.g., Before my child goes someplace: she feels sweaty, her heart beats fast, etc.). In accordance with scoring procedures (Beidel et al., 1998), these item qualifiers were averaged to obtain the item score. Thus, another five-factor model was tested for fit that allowed these two item pairs to have withinpair correlated error. This revised specification led to a significant decrease in 2: 2diff(2) = 57.07, p < .001, suggesting improvement in model fit. Fit statistics for the revised model (Five-Factor C) are consistent with improved model fit. Nevertheless, the standardized RMR continued to fall above the .05 criterion, suggesting possible problems with the model. In an effort to enhance model fit, the number of estimated paths was decreased by collapsing the two most highly correlated factors from Beidel et al.s (1996) scale definitions. Fit statistics for this four-factor model did not evidence an improvement in model fit (see Table 2).

SPAIC PARENT REPORT

Three-factor models. Because the five- and nested four-factor models demonstrated only modest fit and because Beidel and colleagues (1995) previously found that a three-factor model best fit their data, we also tested this three-factor solution. The fit statistics appear in Table 2 and suggest modest model fit. All factor intercorrelations were statistically significantly and ranged from .53 to .78 (see Table 3). Factor loadings of indicators on their latent variables ranged from .01 to 1.15. All path coefficients that had estimated paths from an item to one latent variable were statistically significant. On the other hand, all but one of the path coefficients that had estimated paths from an item to two latent variables were not significant. Items 2, 9, 17, 24, and 25 each evidenced one statistically significant path and one path that was not statistically significant. Although Item 19 was statistically significant on one path and just nearly met significance on the second, the second factor loading was lower than the first (.30 vs. .36). Another three-factor model that specified the removal of the weaker loadings was tested for model fit (Three-Factor B). In this model specification, although 2 increased significantly, 2diff(6) = 13.24, p < .05, and AIC increased, the standardized RMR and GFI decreased slightly as a result of decreasing the number of paths estimated, and the RMSEA, Cfit, and IFI remained the same. Modification indexes for theta-delta indicated several items again shared substantial correlated error (Items 19 and 20 = 39.86, Items 21 and 24 = 33.37, Items 25 and 26 = 75.72). Items 19 and 20 both ask about behavioral responses to social situations.

The only difference between the items is that 19 asks about avoidance whereas 20 asks about escape from social situations. It is possible that parents were not able to make this slight distinction in behavior. So although it makes clinical sense to assess whether a child tends to escape versus avoid social situations, measurement of this distinction was not supported empirically. Similarly, Item pairs 21 and 24 and 25 and 26 also have structural similarities as described previously. Future research should examine if in other samples parents are better able to make these subtle discriminations. Because these item idiosyncrasies introduced strain in the factor structure, an adjusted three-factor model was tested for fit that allowed these three item pairs to have correlated error within pairs. This led to a significant decrease in 2: 2diff(3) = 125.99, p < .001, suggesting substantive improvement in model fit. All factor intercorrelations were statistically significantly and ranged from .58 to .83. Fit statistics for the revised model (Three-Factor C) appear in Table 2. Although the GFI and RMR did not achieve the suggested values for acceptable model fit, all other fit statistics indicated that this model fit the data best among all tests. Finally, we tested a two- (i.e., collapsing the first two factors from the Beidel et al., 1995, model) and a one-factor model, but fit indexes indicated significantly poorer model fit; 2diff(1) = 19.55, p < .001 and 2diff(2) = 130.81, p < .001, respectively; see Table 2. Thus, the three-factor solution was the best fitting model (see Table 4 for factor loadings from the final confirmatory factor analysis). However, given that the

Table 4. Lambda X (Factor Loading) Matrix From the Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor Item (No.) Scared and doesnt know what to do if somebody starts arguing with him or her (10) Scared to say what he or she thinks if somebody says something that is wrong or bad (13) Scared when ignored or made fun of (18) Scared and doesnt know what to do if somebody asks him or her to do something that he or she doesnt want to (11) Scared talking for longer than a few minutes (15) Scared and doesnt know what to do when in an embarrassing situation (12) Scared when starts to talk (14) Scared to ask questions in class (8) Scared when in the school cafeteria (9) Leaves social situations (parties, school, playing with others) (20) Experiences physical symptoms before going someplace (a party, school, soccer game, etc.) (25) Avoids social situations (parties, playing with others) (19) Experiences physical symptoms at someplace (a party, school, soccer game, etc.) (26) Has scary thoughts when with others (24) Thinks about what might go wrong before going someplace with others (21) Goes home early when at parties, dances, school, where there will be more than two people (6) Scared when speaking (giving a book report, reading aloud) in front of others (16) Scared when speaking or reading in front of a group of people (4) Scared when has to do something while others watch him or her (read aloud, etc.) (3) Scared when he or she becomes the center of attention (and other people look at her or him) (2) Scared when joining in a social situation with a large group of boys and girls (more than six) (1) Scared when answering questions in class or at meetings (e.g., scouts) even when he or she knows the answer (5) Scared when he or she is in a school play, choir, music, or dance recital in front of others (17) Note: AGC = Assertiveness/General Conversation; TSE = Traditional Social Encounters; PP = Public Performance. AGC 0.77 0.75 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.55 0.53 0.75 0.67 0.65 0.61 0.59 0.54 0.28 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.62 TSE PP

595

HIGA ET AL.

Table 5. Correlation Matrix of Measures

SPAICP AG/C TSE PP SPAIC INT EXT A/D W/D RB AG .93** .77** .88** .43** .42** .19* .37** .36** .18* .18* AG/C .67** .72** .41** .34** .17 .30** .31** .13 .17 TSE PP SPAIC INT EXT A/D W/D RB

.49** .31** .35** .13 .31** .26** .13 .12

.37** .38** .22* .36** .33** .21** .19*

.10 .00 .12 .10 0.03 0.01

.66** .86** .82** .57** .64**

.56** .55** .90** .97**

.57** .47** .56**

.55** .52**

.77**

Note: SPAICP = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for ChildrenParent Report; AG/C = SPAICP Assertiveness/General Conversation from the final model; TSE = SPAICP Traditional Social Encounters from the final model; PP = SPAICP Public Performance from the final model; SPAIC = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (Child Report); INT = CBCL Internalizing; EXT = CBCL Externalizing; A/D = CBCL Anxious/Depressed; W/D = CBCL Withdrawn/Depressed; RB = CBCL Rule Breaking; AG = CBCL Aggressive. *p < .05. **p < .01.

fit indexes did not all meet suggested values for acceptable model fit, future research should examine the replicability of our findings so that clear recommendations for scoring subscales of the SPAICP can be made. Scale Consistency and Concurrent Validity In accord with previous findings, the SPAICP demonstrated internal consistency (see Table 1) and was significantly correlated with child-reported social anxiety and parent-reported anxiety and negative affect (see Table 5). Although parentchild agreement was modest, this is consistent with the literature on crossinformant agreement (e.g., Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Moreover, because one informants report is not necessarily more accurate or valid than anothers, this finding provides an even stronger argument for the importance of multiple raters. In support of discriminant validity, the SPAICP was only modestly related to measures of parent-reported externalizing problems (see Table 5). Further, when correlation coefficients for convergent scales were directly compared with coefficients for discriminant scales using procedures described by Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin (1992), convergent coefficients (i.e., SPAICP and CBCL Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, and Internalizing) were significantly higher than discriminant coefficients (i.e., SPAICP and CBCL Aggressive, Rule-Breaking, and Externalizing; all ps < .05; listwise n = 114).

version, evidencing internal consistency, parentchild agreement, and convergent and discriminant validity. Comparative confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor model over a five-factor model. Future studies on the SPAICP should focus on gaining more information on test stability and performance in clinical samples.

References
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213232. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington, VT: Research Center for Children, Youth and Families. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317332. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.) Washington, DC: Author. Austin, A. A., & Chorpita, B. F. (2004). Temperament, anxiety, and depression: Comparisons across five ethnic groups of children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 216226. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Fink, C. M. (1996). Assessment of childhood social phobia: Construct, convergent, and discriminative validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAIC). Psychological Assessment, 3, 235240. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., Hamlin, K., & Morris, T. L. (2000). The Social Phobia Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAIC): External and discriminative validity. Behavior Therapy, 31, 7587. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1995). A new inventory to assess social anxiety and phobia: The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Psychological Assessment, 7, 7379. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1999). Psychopathology of childhood social phobia. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 643651. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAIC) users manual. New York: Multi-Health Systems.

Conclusions Results suggested that the parent-report version of the SPAIC performs similarly to the child-report 596

SPAIC PARENT REPORT Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cole, D. A., Hoffman, K., Tram, J. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Structural differences of parent and child reports of childrens symptoms of depression and anxiety. Psychological Assessment, 12, 174185. Epkins, C. C. (2002). A comparison of two self-report measures of childrens social anxiety in clinical and community samples. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 6979. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172175. Morris, T. L., & Masia, C. L. (1998). Psychometric evaluation of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children: Concurrent validity and normative data. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 452458. Nauta, M. H., Scholing, A., Rapee, R. M., Abbott, M., Spence, S. H., & Waters, A. (2004). A parent-report measure of childrens anxiety: Psychometric properties and comparison with childreport in a clinical and nonclinical sample. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 42, 813839. Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1985). Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Silverman, W. K., & Nelles, W. B. (1989). The stability of mothers ratings of child fearfulness. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 3, 15. Srbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 50, 8390. Spence, S. H. (1998). A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 36, 545566. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180. Storch, E. A., Masia-Warner, C., Dent, H. C., Roberti, J. W., & Fisher, P. H. (2004). Psychometric evaluation of the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents and the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children: Construct validity and normative data. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 18, 665679.

Received August 7, 2005 Accepted July 20, 2006

597