Preprint Multidimensional Anxiety Scale
Preprint Multidimensional Anxiety Scale
Preprint Multidimensional Anxiety Scale
net/publication/221715674
CITATIONS READS
5 270
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Coping mechanisms used by bully-victims, bullies and victims at school View project
Integrating multidisciplinary social science theories and perspectives to understand school bullying and victimization View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Simon C. Hunter on 22 June 2017.
Stephen Houghton
Graduate School of Education,
The University of Western Australia
Simon C. Hunter
School of Psychological Sciences and Health,
University of Strathclyde
Toby Trewin
Graduate School of Education,
The University of Western Australia
&
Annemaree Carroll
School of Education,
The University of Queensland
Cite as: Houghton, S., Hunter, S.C., Trewin, T., & Carroll, A. (2014). The
Objective: To examine the factor structure of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for
210 high school aged adolescents (109 males, 101 females), 115 of who were clinically
diagnosed as ADHD (86 males, 29 females). The remaining 95 were non ADHD
reduced item pool, which combined the Harm Avoidance and Separation Anxiety
scales together. This model was invariant across younger and older participants, and
across boys and girls. The model was largely invariant across ADHD and non-ADHD
groups. The ADHD group had significantly higher Physical Symptom factor scores
than the non-ADHD group. Conclusion: The MASC is useful for assessing anxiety in
adolescents with and without ADHD but items reflecting the Harm Avoidance and
2
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is characterised by
impulsivity (American Psychiatric Association, APA: 2000), which can affect many
the most pervasive psychological disorder in children in their schooling years (Woo
& Keatinge, 2008) affecting 3-7% of school-aged children (APA, 2000). Studies have
reported prevalence rates for children and adolescents with ADHD in the United
States as ranging from 3-11% (Barkley & Biederman, 1997), 4.2-6.3% (Mash &
Barkely, 2003), 5.9% (Rohde, 2008) and up to 16.1% (see Lecendreux, Konofal, &
(Graetz, Sawyer, Hazel, Arney, & Baghurst 2001; Mental Health Division of Western
Spencer, Biederman, Wilens, & Faraone, 2002). Hence, ADHD is a major clinical and
public health concern (Perwien, Kratochvil, Faries, Vaughan et al., 2008) that affects
health care costs significantly (Chan, Zhan, & Homer, 2002; Leibson, Katusic,
ADHD is also highly comorbid with a range of psychiatric disorders (Baldwin &
Dadds, 2008; Jarrett & Ollendick, 2008) and one of the most consistent findings in
ADHD research over the past 25 years has been the high prevalence rates of comorbid
anxiety (see Sorenson, Plessen, Nicholas, & Lundervold, 2011). Studies (Alqahtani,
2010; Jensen, Martin, & Cantwell, 1997; Pliszka, 1998; Tannock, 2000; Vloet,
Konrad, Herpertz-Dahlmann, Polier, & Gunther, 2010) have reported 25% to 50% of
children with ADHD as exhibiting an anxiety disorder and/or meeting the Diagnostic
3
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Version IV-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR;
relationship between ADHD and anxiety, which exists across international populations
(Souza, Pinheiro, Denardin, Mattos, & Rohde, 2004), is in excess of the 10-21% and 5-
15% reported in normative samples of school-aged children (Thaler, Kazemi, & Wood,
2010; Pliszka, Carlson, & Swanson, 1999). If left untreated pediatric anxiety disorders
predict adult anxiety disorders and depression (Kendall, Compton, Walkup, Birmaher
et al., 2010).
Stimulants are effective medications for treating the core symptoms of ADHD
children with comorbid anxiety respond differently to treatments (Baldwin & Dadds,
2008), and when stimulant medication is employed the response of the individual with
ADHD is often less robust (Ter-Stepanian, Grizenko, Zappitelli, & Joober, 2010).
is therefore critical both from a clinical and scientific perspective. To achieve this
there is a need for a reliable instrument to measure levels of anxiety symptoms (and to
monitor progress of treatment). Perceiving the internal world of their children is often
difficult for parents however, and likewise confessing anxiety problems to parents
may be uncomfortable for children (Baldwin & Dads, 2007). Children are consistent
within themselves across measures of anxiety (Barbosa, Tannock, & Manassis, 2002)
4
One of the most commonly used, empirically driven, self-report measures for
anxiety is the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC: March, 1998).
The MASC was developed as a state measure of anxiety because of the need for such a
measure that was appropriate for use with children and adolescents and which had
Guiterrez, Bailey, & Chowdhry, 2010). Suitable for assessing broad dimensions of
anxiety in 8 to 19 year olds, the MASC was developed using a “bottom up” approach
whereby the 39 items (comprising the MASC) were adopted from a 104 item pool, (see
March, 1998). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (March, Parker, Sullivan,
Stallings, & Connors, 1997; March, Sullivan, & Parker, 1999) identified four correlated
factors during instrument development: Physical Symptoms (12 items), Social Anxiety
internal consistencies ranging from .74 to .90. Each of the items on these domains is
rated on a four-point scale ranging from “never true about me” (score 0) to “often true
The MASC factor structure has been cross validated with community and clinical
Ollendick, & Fisak, 2008; March, Sullivan, & Parker, 1999; Rynn, Barber, Khalid-
Khan, Siqueland et al, 2006), Iceland (Olason, Sighvatsson, & Smari 2004), Sweden
(Ivarsson, 2006), Australia (Baldwin & Dadds, 2007), Taiwan (Yen, Yang, Wu, Hsu,
& Cheng, 2010) and South Africa (Fincham, Schickerling, Temane, De Roover, &
Seedat, 2008) and has been shown to be invariant across gender. Acceptable levels of
convergent and divergent validity and test-retest reliability have also been reported for
the MASC (see Baldwin & Dadds, 2007). Additional research conducted with
adolescent psychiatric in-patient samples (Osman et al., 2009) also supports the four-
factor structure. However, Osman et al. (2009) suggested that some MASC items from
5
the Harm Avoidance and Separation Anxiety subscales may need to be revised.
Kingery, Ginsburg and Burstein (2009) also identified problems with the Harm
Avoidance and Separation Anxiety subscales, with none of the items from these
loading on to any of the factors. Overall, the four-factor model provided a poor fit with
was supported.
positive, a validation of its factor structure with adolescents diagnosed with ADHD
appears missing from the literature. March, Connors, Arnold, Epstein et al. (1999)
children (ages 7 to 9 years) “with DSM IV ADHD Combined Type” (p. 86) and found
an excellent fit of the four factor model. Additional information on the structure of the
given Baldwin and Dadds’ (2007, p. 253) conclusion that it is “most clinically useful
Despite the excellent psychometrics of the MASC there is limited research with
adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. The primary aim of this study therefore was to
examine the factor structure of the MASC with adolescents with and without ADHD.
A secondary aim was to compare fit across younger and older adolescents, and across
Method
The sample consisted of 210 high school aged adolescents (109 males, 101
females) recruited from Grades 8 to 12 (ages 13 to 17.7 years). Of these, 115 were
Association, 2000) criteria for ADHD (86 males, 29 females) and 95 were non ADHD
6
Community Comparisons (23 males and 72 females) who had no known diagnosed
neurological deficits. The distribution according to school grade levels was: Grade 8
(13 years of age; N = 52, Males 30, Females 22), Grade 9 (14 years; N = 49, Males 16,
Females 33), Grade 10 (15 years; N = 30, Males 18, Females 12), Grade 11 (16 years;
N = 43, Males 22, Females 21), and Grade 12 (17-18 years; N = 36, Males 23, Females
13).
The ADHD sample was recruited in one of two ways: (i) from the database of
families with children diagnosed with ADHD stored at a University based clinic for
each invite a parent who had an adolescent (in the same school grade level) without
ADHD or any other known diagnosed neurological disorder to participate. The non
ADHD comparisons attended nine separate high schools located in low to middle (N =
the postcode level from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003) in the metropolitan
The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC: March, 1998) was
researchers requested that for all test administrations rooms should be quiet, free from
extraneous distracters and that testing be conducted in the morning, to control for
diminished persistence noted in children with ADHD (see Houghton, Douglas, West,
Whiting, et al., 1998; Lawrence, Houghton, Tannock, Douglas, et al., 2002). Verbal
checks with parents affirmed that these requests had been adhered to.
Instrumentation
7
The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC: March, 1998) is a self-
report instrument developed to assess the major dimensions of anxiety in children and
adolescents aged 8 to 19 years. A standardised child version (used in this study) and a
research based parent version are available, the items being fundamentally identical.
Respondents rate each of the 39 items separately using a four-point scale anchored with
the response options: “never true about me” (score 0), “rarely true about me” (= 1),
“sometimes true about me” (= 2) and “often true about me” (=3). Completion of the
Procedure
Permission to conduct the research was initially obtained from the Human
Research Ethics Committee of the administering institution. Following this, the parents
of potential participants with ADHD held on the university based clinic database (n =
160) and in the ADHD support groups (n = 40) were all sent personalised letters of
and reply paid envelopes. Parents who agreed to allow their son(s)/daughter(s) to
participate subsequently received a package via the mail containing two copies of the
MASC, written instructions describing how the instrument should be completed (to
ensure standardisation of procedures), and a reply paid envelope. Overall, the 115
completed MASCs represent a positive response of 57.5% for the ADHD group.
The non ADHD community comparisons (n = 95) were recruited by requesting the
parents of adolescents with ADHD to each invite a parent who had an adolescent (in
the same school grade level) without ADHD or any other known neurological disorder
second copy of all information along with the MASC was provided. Overall, the 95
completed MASCs represent a positive response of 82.6% for the non ADHD
community comparisons.
8
Results
using AMOS 19.0 it was necessary to work with a complete data set. Listwise deletion
of cases with missing data on MASC items reduced the sample size from 210 to 199
(5.3% deletion). There were no differences in whether cases did or did not have
missing data when comparing the ADHD and non ADHD groups, χ2 (df = 1) = 1.51, p
= .219.
Goodness of fit in all models was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI:
above .95 indicates good fit, above .90 indicates adequate fit), the root mean-square
error or approximation (RMSEA: .05 or less indicates good fit, .08 or less indicates
adequate fit), the CMIN/DF (lower than 2-3 indicates good fit: Carmines & McIver,
1981), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR: less than .08 reflects good
fit: Hu & Bentler, 1999) and chi-square (non-significant values represent good fit).
This was to confirm the hypothesized relationships between item indicators and latent
2010) was conducted. This model viewed the four latent variables as independent but
correlated. This revealed a model which had mixed results from the goodness of fit
indicators: χ2 (df = 696) = 1254.02, p < .001, CMIN/DF ratio = 1.80, CFI = .76,
RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence interval [CI]: .06, .07), SRMR = .08. In order to
improve the fit of the model, we refined the model by iteratively deleting those items
with the lowest loadings, until we reached the point where no items loaded under .4.
This meant we deleted 10 items in the following order: Item 21 (“I try to do things
other people will like”, factor loading = .20); item 11 (“I try hard to obey my parents
and teachers”, factor loading = .19); item 5 (“I keep my eyes open for danger”, factor
9
loading = .24); item 26 (“I sleep next to someone from my family”, factor loading =
.25); item 33 (“I get nervous if I have to perform in public”, factor loading = .30); item
2 (“I usually ask permission”, factor loading = .33); item 13 (“I check things out first”,
factor loading = .31); item 32 (“If I get upset or scared, I let someone know right
away”, factor loading = .37); item 36 (“I check to make sure things are safe”, factor
loading = .36); and item 28 (“I try to do everything exactly right”, factor loading = .38).
This final adjustment resulted in a not positive definite covariance matrix. In this
instance, the correlation between Harm Avoidance and Separation Anxiety latent
Following Byrne (2010) these two factors were therefore combined into a single factor.
This resolved the multicollinearity issue, and the fit of the model was better than the
original model, but still remained unsatisfactory: χ2 (df = 374) = 620.36, p < .001,
CMIN/DF ratio = 1.66, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence interval [CI]: .05,
Next, we examined the MASC items to identify similarities in order to amend the
model by correlating the errors associated with those items. We therefore correlated the
following error terms: Items 4 (“I get scared when my parents go away”) and 9 (“I try
to stay near my mom or dad”); items 1 (“I feel tense or uptight”) and 27 (“I feel restless
and on edge”); items 8 (“I get shaky or jittery”) and 35 (“My hands shake”); and items
18 (“I have pains in my chest”) and 24 (“My heart races or skips a beat”). These
refinements led to acceptable model fit: χ2 (df = 370) = 550.76, p < .001, CMIN/DF
ratio = 1.49, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence interval [CI]: .04, .06), SRMR
= .07. The final items, the scales they belong to, and the factor loadings are shown in
Table 1. As shown in Table 1, all three scales had good internal reliability (all
10
Invariance of the measurement model across group (ADHD/Non ADHD),
Invariance across ADHD and non ADHD groups. Our baseline model was one in
which the factor loadings, correlations between latent factor scores, and variance in
factor scores were allowed to vary across groups. A second model, which additionally
constrained all factor loadings to be equal across groups, was then compared to the
baseline model. Change in chi-square between the two models was non-significant, ∆χ2
(df = 26) = 20.78, p = .753, indicating that factor loadings were invariant across groups.
Our third model, compared to the second model, added the constraint that correlations
between latent factor scores also had to be equal across groups. Again, the two models
did not differ significantly, ∆χ2 (df = 3) = 1.07, p = .785. Finally, a fourth model was
compared against the third model, and the fourth model added the constraint that factor
variances also be equal. These two models did differ significantly, ∆χ2 (df = 3) = 13.77,
p = .003. Using the critical ratios of differences, this showed that there was a difference
for the Physical symptoms factor (z = -2.25) but not the Social Anxiety (z = -1.25) or
Separation Anxiety Harm Avoidance (z = -1.01) factors. For the Physical Symptoms
factor there was greater variation in factor scores among the ADHD group (.17, SE =
Invariance across gender. The same incremental procedure as above was used to
assess invariance across gender. The model was invariant with respect to factor
loadings, ∆χ2 (df = 26) = 26.79, p = .420, correlations between factors, ∆χ2 (df = 3) =
1.77, p = .621, and the variances of the factors, ∆χ2 (df = 3) = 1.53, p = .675. Thus,
by splitting the sample into Grades 8 to 9 (N=94) and Grades 10 to 12 (N=105). This
11
case for gender, there were no differences across these two groups: factor loadings
were equal, ∆ χ2 (df = 26) = 34.47, p = .124, factor correlations were equal, ∆χ2 (df = 3)
= 4.89, p = .181, and factor variances were equal, ∆χ2 (df = 3) = 2.27, p = .519.
We computed factor scores for each of the factors using the factor score
weightings calculated by AMOS 19.0 using the formula W = BS-1, where B is the
matrix of covariances between the unobserved and observed variables, and S is the
matrix of covariances among the observed variables. To use these, each participant’s
score on each item is multiplied by the factor score weight for that item, and this is then
added to a similar score for the following item, and so on (see Table 1 for factor score
weights). Three separate three-way independent groups ANOVAs were conducted, one
for each factor score. Each ANOVA had Group (ADHD vs non ADHD), Grades
2 for means and standard deviations). These revealed only one significant effect, which
was large in magnitude, revealing that the ADHD group had significantly higher scores
on the Physical Symptoms factor (Mean = 0.59, S.D. = 0.37) than the non ADHD
The measure was equivalent across younger and older participants and across male and
female participants with respect to factor loadings, correlations between factors and
factor variances. Factor loadings and correlations between factors also were invariant
across the ADHD and non ADHD groups, though there was greater variation in
Physical Symptoms factor scores among the ADHD group than the non ADHD group.
In terms of mean scores on the three factors, there were no differences according to
12
school-stage or gender, and the only difference between the ADHD group and the non
ADHD group was on the Physical Symptoms factor where the latter group displayed
lower scores.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to address the limited research examining the
adolescents with ADHD. As pointed out by Tannock (2003) “comorbidity is the rule
rather than the exception in ADHD” (p. 759) and there is converging literature
documenting the considerable overlap between anxiety and ADHD in both referred
and community samples (see Hammerness et al., 2010; Kollins, 2007; Mayes,
Calhoun, & Crowell, 2000; Schatz & Rostain, 2006). To date, many studies
examining anxiety in children and adolescents with ADHD have tended to report
multidimensional nature. Given that young people with ADHD and comorbid anxiety
experience greater cognitive impairment (Hammerness et al., 2010; Schatz & Rostain,
2006), and respond differently (Baldwin & Dadds, 2008) or experience less robust
contexts.
The present study did not confirm the four factor model (i.e., Physical
the research conducted with children with DSM IV ADHD Combined Type (see
March et al., 1999), or with the majority of studies using community and clinical
samples (e.g., Grills,Tacquechel, Ollendick, & Fisak, 2008; Olason, Sighvatsson, &
Smari 2004; Rynn, Barber, Khalid-Khan, Siqueland, Dembiski, McCarthy, & Gallop,
2006; Yen, Yang, Wu, Hsu, & Cheng, 2010). Rather, a three-factor model with
13
satisfactory reliabilities comprising Physical Symptoms (α = .84), Social Anxiety (α
produced the best-fit. Kingery et al. (2009) also reported a similar three-factor model
in their adolescent sample whereby none of the Separation Anxiety items loaded on
to any factor. The reason put forward by the authors for this was that the Separation
Anxiety items did not appear relevant to the African American adolescents in their
study and therefore may not have accurately captured how anxiety is manifested in
this population. The suggestion made was that a broader range of items may be
needed on the MASC to adequately assess the various types of anxiety with African
Americans.
Other researchers have also suggested the need to revise some of the items from
the Harm Avoidance and Separation Anxiety subscales of the MASC. Osman et al.
(2009) suggested that in their study this might have been due to the nature of the
anxiety disorder symptoms seen in adolescent psychiatric inpatients referred for high
rates of internalizing disorders. Rynn et al. (2006) also highlighted issues relating to
the Harm Avoidance subscale, particularly its poor correlation with self-report
reduce conflict, a desire to please others, and to do everything exactly right) may be
related more to generalized anxiety (see March et al., 1997) especially in those
reporting feelings of apprehension and the need for constant reassurance (see Masi,
Millepiedi, Mucci, Poli et al., 2004). Baldwin and Dadds (2007) further argued that
the Harm Avoidance subscale may capture young people who are perfectionist and
those who seek to present themselves in a favorable light (e.g., “I usually ask
Baldwin and Dadds (2007) hypothesized that their findings regarding the weakness
of the Harm Avoidance scale may have been the result of social desirability
14
characteristics specific to community samples. In the present study, both clinical and
community samples were recruited and weaknesses were still evident, which led to
the Harm Avoidance and Separation Anxiety factors being combined into a single
factor.
The only significant difference evident between the adolescents with ADHD and
without ADHD was for Physical Symptoms, with the former recording higher scores
than the latter. Although this concurs with Baldwin and Dadds’ (2008) findings, it
appears that the children and adolescents in their study had not been diagnosed with
that children and adolescents with ADHD worry about their performance and
1988), and as a result manifest overt signs and symptoms of anxiety (see Jensen,
Hinshaw, Swanson, Greenhill, et al., 2001; Molina, Hinshaw, Swanson, Arnold, et al.,
2009).
It is well documented that 30-40% of those with ADHD referred to clinics meet
the diagnostic criteria for more than one form of comorbid anxiety (see Tannock,
2000). That there were no differences between adolescents with ADHD and those
Avoidance scale appears contrary to these data and other research (see Last, Perrin,
Hersen, & Kazdin, 1992; Spencer, Biederman, & Wilens, 1998). The relative lack of
intervention. The adolescents with ADHD in the present study had received a formal
diagnosis from a primary care physician and it is therefore highly likely that at the time
of the study they were receiving pharmacological intervention. This may have masked
15
No age (Grades 8 and 9 vs Grades 10 to 12) and/or gender differences were found
surprising given the evidence to date (see Gershon, 2002; Rucklidge, 2010, for a
comprehensive review). Cross sectional and prospective studies show adolescent girls
with ADHD display higher levels of internalizing behavior problems, more multiple
anxiety disorders, and more specific anxiety disorders than boys (e.g., Gershon, 2002;
Hammerness, Geller, Petty, Lamb, Bristol, & Biederman, 2010; Levy, Hay, Bennett,
& McStephen, 2005; Rucklidge, 2010). Many previous studies have used teacher
and/or parent ratings of ADHD and anxiety, which according to Schatz and Rostain
accurate insight into the subjective dispositions that can be difficult to obtain from third
parties.
Generally, this present study supports the utility of the MASC as a measure of
anxiety in adolescents with ADHD. However, the present study also indicates that
items in the Separation and Harm Avoidance subscales may need to be re-examined
and perhaps revised and as such a degree of caution may be warranted when
interpreting these subscales. For example, some of these items (e.g., “I try hard to
everything exactly right”) may not resonate with today’s young people, irrespective
As with most research there are some limitations associated with the present
research and these need to be acknowledged. For example, the sample size was
16
warranted. Self-report was the single source of data collection for anxiety and
parents and teachers may be beneficial. Although the adolescents in the ADHD group
had received a formal diagnosis, their ADHD subtypes were unknown. Given that
research has shown anxiety is more likely to occur with ADHD (Inattentive Type) the
absence of sub typing information limits the findings to some extent. Finally, it was
not known whether the adolescents with ADHD were receiving medication at the time
of administration of the MASC, which may have had the effect of masking the true
Hammerness et al. (2010) affirm that the relationship between ADHD and anxiety
instrumentation with which to measure anxiety. This present study has led to an
17
References
105(5), 1158–70.
economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2001 (ABS Cat. No.
Baldwin J.S. & Dadds, M. (2007). Reliability and validity of parent and child versions
Barbosa, J., Tannock, R., & Manassis, K. (2002). Measuring anxiety: Parent-child
Barkley, R.A. (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp 63-112). New York: Guilford
Press.
Barkley, R.A. & Biederman, J. (1997). Toward a broader definition of the age-of-
18
Bell, A. (2011). A critical review of ADHD diagnostic criteria: What to address in the
Carmines, E.G. & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables.
In G.W. Bohrnstedt & E.F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues
Chan, E., Zhan, C., & Homer, J. (2002). Health care use and costs for children with
Fincham, D., Schickerling, J., Temane, M., Nel, D., De Roover, W., & Seedat, S.
Anxiety Scale for children among adolescents in the Cape Town metropole of South
Gershon, J. (2002). Gender differences in ADHD. The ADHD Report, 10(4), 8-16.
Graetz, B., Sawyer, M., & Baghurst, P. (2005). Gender Differences among children
with DSM-IV ADHD in Australia. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Graetz, B.W., Sawyer, M.G., Hazel, I.P., Arney, F., & Baghurst, P. (2001). Validity of
children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
19
Hammerness, P., Geller, D., Petty, C., Lamb, A., Bristol, E., & Biederman, J. (2010).
Houghton, S., Douglas, G., West, J., Whiting, K., Wall, M., Langsford, S., Powell,
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria in fix indexes in covariance structure
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Ivarsson, T. (2006). Normative data for the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for
113.
Jarrett, M.A. & Olendick, T.H. (2008). A conceptual review of the comorbidity of
Jensen, P.S., Hinshaw, S.P., Swanson, J.M., Greenhill, L.L., Conners, C.K., Arnold,
L.E., et al. (2001). Findings from the NIMH multimodal treatment of ADHD
Jensen, P., Martin, D., & cantwell, D.P. (1997). Comorbidity in ADHD: Implications
for research, practice, and DSM-V. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
20
Kendall, P.C., Compton, S., Walkup, J.T., Birmaher, B., Albano, A.M., Sherrill, J.,
Ginsburg, G., Rynn, M., McCracken, J., Gosch, E., Keeton, C., Bergman, L.,
Sakolsky, D., Suveg, C., Iyengar, S., March, J., & Piacentini, J. (2010). Clinical
360-365.
Kingery, J.N., Ginsburg, G.S., & Burstein, M. (2009). Factor structure and
40, 287-300.
Kollins, S.H. (2007). Managing ADHD and comorbidity. Retrieved March 2010, from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549973
Last, C.G., Perrin, S., Hersen, M., & Kazdin, A.E. (1992). DSM-III-R anxiety disorders
Lawrence, V., Houghton, S., Tannock, R., Douglas, G., Durkin, K., & Whiting, K.
tasks in videogame play and on a visit to the zoo. The Journal of Abnormal Child
Lecendreux, M., Konofal, E., & Faraone, S.V. (2011). Prevalence of Attention Deficit
Leibson, C., Katusic, S., Barbaresi, W., Ranson, J., & O’Brien, P. (2001). Use and
costs of medical care for children and adolescents with and without attention-
53-66.
21
Levy, F., Hay, D.A., Bennett, K.S., & McStephen, M. (2005). Gender differences in
March J.S. (1998). Manual for the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children
March, J.S., Conners, C., Arnold, G., Epstein, J., Parker, J., Hinshaw, S., Abikoff, H.,
Molina, B., Wells, K., Newcorn, J., Schuck, S., Pelham, W.E. & Hoza, B. (1999).
March, J.S., Parker, J., Sullivan, K., Stallings, P., & Connors, K. (1997). The
and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
36, 554-565.
March J.S., Sullivan, K., & Parker, J. (1999) Test-Retest Reliability of the
349-358.
Mash, E. & Barkley, R.A. (2003). Child psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Masi, G., Millepiedi, S., Mucci, M., Poli, P., Betrini, N., & Milantoni, L. (2004).
Mayes, S.D., Calhoun, S.L., & Crowell, E.W. (2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD:
Mental Health Division. (2000). Attentional problems in children and young people:
of Western Australia.
22
Molina, B.S., Hinshaw, S.P., Swanson, J.M., Arnold, L.E., et al. (2009). The MTA at 8
years: Prospective follow-up of children treated for combined type ADHD in the
Olason, D., Sighvatsson, M., & Smari, J. (2004). Psychometric properties of the
Osman, A.,Williams, J.E., Espenschade, K., Gutierrez, P.M., Bailey, J., & Chowdhry,
Perwien, A., Kratochvil, C.J., Faries, D., Vaughan, B., Busner, J., Saylor, K.,
Buermeyer, C., Kaplan, S., & Swindle, R. (2008). Emotional expression in children
Pliszka, S.R. (1989). Effect of anxiety on cognition, behaviour, and stimulant response
28, 882-887.
Pliszka, S.R., Carlson, C.L. Swanson, J.M (1999). ADHD with Comorbid Disorders,
23
Rohde, L.A. (2008). Is there a need to reformulate attention deficit hyperactivity
Rynn, M., Barber, J.P., Khalid-Khan, S., Siqueland, L., Dembiski, M., McCarthy, K.,
Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R.J., et al.
(2000). The mental health of young people in Australia: Key findings from the
child and adolescent component of the National Survey of Mental Health and
Schatz, D.B., & Rostain, A.L. (2006). ADHD with comorbid anxiety: A review of the
Sorenson, L., Plessen, K., Nicholas, J., & Lundervold, A.J. (2011). Is behavioural
regulation in children with ADHD aggravated by co morbid anxiety disorder?
Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(1), 56-66.
Souza, I., Pinheiro, M., Denardin, D., Mattos, P., & Rohde, L.A. (2004). Attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbidity in Brazil: comparisons between
two referred samples. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 13(4), 243-8.
Spencer, T.J., Biederman, J., & Wilens, T.E. (1998). Pharmacotherapy of ADHD with
Spencer, T., Biederman, J., Wilens, T.E., & Faraone, S.V. (2002). Overview and
24
Strauss, C. Last, C., Hersen, M., & Kazdin, A.E. (1988). Association between anxiety
for Children (MASC). Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 501–514.
Ter-Stepanian M., Grizenko N., Zappitelli M., Joober R., et al. (2010). Clinical
Vloet, T., Konrad, K., Herpertz-Dahlmann, B., Polier, G., & Gunther, T. (2010).
Woo, S.M., & Keatinge, C. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders
Yen, C., Yang, P., Wu, Y.Y., Hsu, F., & Cheng, C.P. (2010). Factor structure and
25
Table 1.
Factor structure, item loadings (factor score weightings), and Cronbach’s alphas.
Factor loadings
Item Physical Social Separation/Harm
(α = .84) (α = .88) (α = .78)
1. I feel tense or uptight .52 (.039)
8. I get shaky or jittery .59 (.056)
12. I get dizzy or faint feelings .51 (.051)
15. I’m jumpy .54 (.053)
18. I have pains in my chest .49 (.038)
20. I feel strange, weird, or unreal .71 (.119)
24. My heart races or skips beats .62 (.067)
27. I feel restless and on edge .62 (.063)
31. I feel sick to my stomach .61 (.085)
35. My hands shake .53 (.037)
38. My hands feel sweaty or cold .48 (.045)
3. I worry about other people laughing at me .69 (.095)
10. I’m afraid that other kids will make fun of me .82 (.178)
14. I worry about getting called on in class .59 (.061)
16. I’m afraid other people will think I’m stupid .69 (.091)
22. I worry about what other people think of me .76 (.116)
29. I worry about doing something stupid or embarrassing .77 (.112)
37. I have trouble asking other kids to play with .62 (.068)
39. I feel shy .57 (.055)
4. I get scared when my parents go away .57 (.057)
7. The idea of going away to camp scares me .55 (.091)
17. I keep the light on at night .49 (.083)
19. I avoid going to places without my family .59 (.105)
23. I avoid watching scary movies and TV shows .45 (.043)
30. I get scared riding in the car or on the bus .43 (.097)
34. Bad weather, the dark, heights, animals, or bugs scare me .46 (.052)
6. I have trouble getting my breath .56 (.083)
9. I try to stay near my mom or dad .58 (.068)
25. I stay away from things that upset me .48 (.060)
26
Table 2.
Means (standard deviations) for factor scores by Grade, Gender and Group.
Factor
8&9 Male ADHD (N=28) 0.60 (0.33) 0.56 (0.43) 1.06 (0.50)
10, 11, 12 Male ADHD (N=54) 0.57 (0.32) 0.38 (0.29) 0.99 (0.63)
27
Biographies
Centre for Child and Adolescent Related Disorders at the University of Western
research focuses primarily on the ways in which children and young people respond,
Communication Technology.
predicting at-risk and delinquent behaviours that incorporates two major motivational
28