Exploratory and Bayesian structural equation modeling reveals a four-factor model for statistics anxiety in diverse graduate students, suggesting improvements for assessment practices.
The Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale (STARS) is a 51-item scale commonly used to measure college students’ anxiety regarding statistics. To date, however, limited empirical research exists that examines statistics anxiety among ethnically diverse or first-generation graduate students. We examined the factor structure and reliability of STARS scores in a diverse sample of students enrolled in graduate courses at a Minority-Serving Institution (n = 194). To provide guidance on assessing dimensionality in small college samples, we compared the performance of best-practice factor analysis techniques: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). We found modest support for the original six-factor structure using CFA, but ESEM and BSEM analyses suggested that a four-factor model best captures the dimensions of the STARS instrument within the context of graduate-level statistics courses. To enhance scale efficiency and reduce respondent fatigue, we also tested and found support for a reduced 25-item version of the four-factor STARS scale. The four-factor STARS scale produced constructs representing task and process anxiety, social support avoidance, perceived lack of utility, and mathematical self-efficacy. These findings extend the validity and reliability evidence of the STARS inventory to include diverse graduate student populations. Accordingly, our findings contribute to the advancement of data science education and provide recommendations for measuring statistics anxiety at the graduate level and for assessing construct validity of psychometric instruments in small or hard-to-survey populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: