Reliability and validity of the Spielberger’s state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) in Serbian university student and psychiatric non-psychotic out-patient populations

  • Nikola M Stojanović Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Niš, Serbia
  • Pavle Randjelović Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Zorana Đinđića 81, 18000 Niš, Serbia
  • Gordana Nikolić Center for Mental Health, Clinical Center Niš, University of Niš, 18 000 Niš, Serbia
  • Nenad Stojiljković Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Zorana Đinđića 81, 18000 Niš, Serbia
  • Sonja Ilić Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Zorana Đinđića 81, 18000 Niš, Serbia
  • Bogdan Stoiljković Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Zorana Đinđića 81, 18000 Niš, Serbia
  • Niko Radulović Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Niš, Višegradska 33, 18000 Niš, Serbia.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/afmnai37-25011
Keywords: STAI scale, anxiety, validity, reliability

Abstract


Anxiety is an inborn emotional and cognitive reaction that enables humans to cope with everyday situations, however, anxiety can be pathological as well. Although Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scales are most frequently used to study the presence/absence of anxiety, there is lack of empirical studies in Serbian healthy and/or diseased population that would indicate its reliability and validity. The aim of the present study was to determine some normative values for STAI scales (state and trait) and to determine its reliability and validity in the studied population of university students and psychiatric patients. Score values obtained from the two analyzed samples, which did not show a normal distribution, showed to be statistically significantly different. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that values of area under the curve for the two scales are higher than >0.85 (p<0.001) and cut-off values that suggest the presence of anxiety are determined to be 38.5 for the S-scale and 45.5 for the T-scale. Data analysis revealed, according to the intraclass correlation coefficient, that S-scale has a moderate reliability (0.713) and that T-scale has a good reliability (0.858). Also, STAI scales given to patients suffering from anxiety disorders are determined to measure the presence of anxiety with coefficient alpha higher than 0.9. The calculated validity, internal consistency, and reliability for the translated STAI version are satisfactory, meaning that the usage of the translated STAI can clearly measure the changes in the level of anxiety in patients suffering from neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders.

References

1. Stojanović MN, Nikolić G, Todorovska M, et al. Anxiety Disorders – Where do we stand now? Current medicamentous treatment knowledge and future perspectives. Acta Fac Med Naiss 2019;36(2):91-101. https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0351-6083/2019/0351-60831902091S.pdf
2. Barton S, Karner C, Salih F, et al. Clinical effectiveness of interventions for treatment-resistant anxiety in older people: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(50):1-59. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18500
3. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. STAI: manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists; 1970
4. Johnson DT. Effects of interview stress on measures of state and trait anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol, 1968;73(3):245-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025860
5. Popov B. Contribution to assessment of effects of Rational emotive behaviour therapy. Psihologija 2004;37(3):375-388. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI0403375P
6. Berberovic D. Sexual compulsivity comorbidity with depression, anxiety, and substance use in students from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eur J Psycho, 2013;9(3): 517-530. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.595
7. Spielberger CD. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. A comprehensive bibliography. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 1983.
8. Knight RG, Waal-Manning HJ, Spears GF. Some norms and reliability data for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Zung Self-Rating Depression scale. Br J Clin Psychol 1983;22 (Pt 4):245-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1983.tb00610.x
9. Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med 2013;4(2):627-635. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755824/pdf/cjim-4-627.pdf
10. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
11. Seok CB, Hamid HSA, Mutang JA, et al. Psychometric properties of the state-trait anxiety inventory (form Y) among Malaysian university students. Sustainability 2018; 10(9): 1-13. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3311/pdf
12. Julian LJ. Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2011;63 Suppl 11:S467-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20561
13. Jakovljević S, Karalejić M, Lazarević Lj. The latent structure of conative dimensions ofElite senior and junior basketball players. FU Phys Ed Sport 2010;8(1):21-30.
14. Metzger RL. (1976). A reliability and validity study of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. J Clin Psychol 1976;32(2): 276-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197604)32:2<276
15. Rosenthal R. Pygmalion effects: Existence, magnitude, and social importance. Educat Res1987; 16(9): 37-40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016009037
16. Counsell N, Cortina-Borja M, Lehtonen A, Stein A. Modelling psychiatric measures using Skew-Normal distributions. Eur Psychiatry 2011;26(2):112-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.08.006
17. Kaspersen M, Götestam KG. A survey of music performance anxiety among Norwegian music students. Eur J Psychiatry 2002; 16(2):69-80.
18. McLean CP, Asnaani A, Litz BT, Hofmann SG. Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. J Psychiatr Res 2011;45(8):1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006
19. Bunevicius A, Staniute M, Brozaitiene J, et al. Screening for anxiety disorders in patients with coronary artery disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-37
20. Kummar R, Indrayan A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for medical researchers. Indian Pediatr 2011;48:277–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-011-0055-4
21. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexøe J, et al. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 888–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00432-8
22. Grant KA, McMahon C, Austin MP. Maternal anxiety during the transition to parenthood: a prospective study. J Affect Disord 2008, 108:101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2007.10.002
23. Grös DF, Antony MM, Simms LJ, et al. Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychol Assess 2007;19(4):369-381. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.369
Published
2025/12/22
Issue
Vol. 37 No. 2 (2020): Acta facultatis medicae Naissensis
Section
Originalni rad / Original article