Why the study?
Assessing maladaptive anxiety is crucial given its associated burdens, prompting this evaluation to extend psychometric studies of the STICSA tool to the Portuguese population.
The Portuguese version of the STICSA is a valid and reliable multidimensional instrument for assessing cognitive and somatic anxiety in both state and trait dimensions.
Extends STICSA validation for multidimensional anxiety assessment; leaves open routine clinical adoption pending further evidence.
The assessment of mal-adaptive anxiety is crucial, considering the associated personal, economic, and societal burden. The State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) is a self-report instrument developed to provide multidimensional anxiety assessment in four dimensions: trait-cognitive, trait-somatic, state-cognitive and state-somatic. This research aimed to extend STICSA's psychometric studies through the assessment of its dimensionality, reliability, measurement invariance and nomological validity in the Portuguese population. Additionally, the predictive validity of STICSA-Trait was also evaluated, through the analysis of the relationship between self-reported trait anxiety and both the subjective and the psychophysiological response across distinct emotional situations. Similarly to previous studies, results supported both a four-factor and two separated bi-factor structures. Measurement invariance across sex groups was also supported, and good nomological validity was observed. Moreover, STICSA trait-cognitive dimension was associated with differences in self-reported arousal between groups of high/low anxiety, whereas STICSA trait-somatic dimension was related to differences in both the subjective and psychophysiological response. Together, these results support STICSA as a useful instrument for a broader anxiety assessment, crucial for an informed diagnosis and practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barros et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: