Content uploaded by Marcos Gimenes Fernandes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcos Gimenes Fernandes on Jun 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [179.163.219.224]
On: 25 June 2013, At: 07:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20
The CSAI-2: An Examination of the
Instrument's Factorial Validity and
Reliability of the Intensity, Direction and
Frequency Dimensions with Brazilian
Athletes
Marcos Gimenes Fernandes a , Sandra Adriana Nunes b , Jose
Vasconcelos Raposo c , Helder Miguel Fernandes d & Robert Brustad e
a State University of Santa Cruz
b Federal University of Santa Catarina
c University of Tras-Os-Montes and Alto Douro
d Research Centre in Sport, Health, and Human Development and
University of Tras-Os-Montes and Alto Douro
e University of Northern Colorado
Accepted author version posted online: 14 Dec 2012.
To cite this article: Marcos Gimenes Fernandes , Sandra Adriana Nunes , Jose Vasconcelos Raposo ,
Helder Miguel Fernandes & Robert Brustad (2013): The CSAI-2: An Examination of the Instrument's
Factorial Validity and Reliability of the Intensity, Direction and Frequency Dimensions with Brazilian
Athletes, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25:4, 377-391
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.744780
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 25: 377–391, 2013
Copyright C
Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2012.744780
The CSAI-2: An Examination of the Instrument’s Factorial Validity
and Reliability of the Intensity, Direction and Frequency
Dimensions with Brazilian Athletes
MARCOS GIMENES FERNANDES
State University of Santa Cruz
SANDRA ADRIANA NUNES
Federal University of Santa Catarina
JOSE VASCONCELOS RAPOSO
University of Tras-Os-Montes and Alto Douro
HELDER MIGUEL FERNANDES
Research Centre in Sport, Health, and Human Development
and University of Tras-Os-Montes and Alto Douro
ROBERT BRUSTAD
University of Northern Colorado
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) has been a widely used instrument for
the assessment of anxiety in sport but within limited cultural contexts. Conceptual issues as
well as concerns about the psychometric properties of the measure have resulted in questions
surrounding its use. The purposes of the present study were (a) to examine the factorial validity
and reliability of the CSAI-2, including the intensity, direction, and frequency dimensions with
a Brazilian sample; (b) to investigate the inter-scale correlations among the three measured
dimensions and between the original and the reduced scales; and (c) to examine the properties
of the CSAI-2 within a novel cultural context. A sample of 334 athletes (245 male, 89 female)
completed the CSAI-2 questionnaire 1hr prior to competition. Confirmatory factor analyses
were conducted that contrasted the proposed model with competing models. These results
provided support for a reduced measurement model (CSAI-2R; 16 items) that was comprised
of three factors (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence). The pattern of inter-
scale associations revealed correlated, but not identical, factors. Correlations between the
Received 1 January 2012; accepted 25 October 2012.
Address correspondence to Robert Brustad, University of Northern Colorado, School of Sport &
Exercise Science, Campus Box 0039, Greeley 80639. E-mail: bob.brustad@unco.edu
377
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
378 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
original and the reduced scales were high. In conclusion, these results provide evidence that
the CSAI-2R (16 items) has good psychometric properties for all response dimensions within a
Brazilian cultural context and is a valid competitive state anxiety and self-confidence measure
when used immediately prior to competition.
The study of the causes and consequences of sport-related anxiety has long attracted the
attention of sport psychology researchers. The multidimensional theory of competitive state
anxiety was developed by Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) as a means of explaining the
independent forms of influence of somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence
on sport performance. Related efforts by these researchers resulted in the development of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2; Martens et al., 1990). The CSAI-2 has
been widely used by researchers because it is a measure that is relatively easy to administer
immediately prior to sport competitions. However, several researchers have identified concerns
related to the conceptual foundation underlying the development of the instrument as well as
the psychometric properties of the measure. A further consideration involves the knowledge
that the CSAI-2 has been utilized extensively with English-speaking North American and
European athletes but very little is known about the merits of the instrument when used in
different cultural contexts and/or when it has been translated to different languages. Evidence
of favorable psychometric properties for the instrument with non-English speaking populations
could stimulate further use of the instrument in varied cultural contexts and contribute to the
knowledge base in applied sport psychology.
The CSAI-2 has received extensive use over the past two decades as a means of under-
standing the unique contributions of somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence to
sport performance (i.e., Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003; Jones, 1995; Lundqvist, Kentt¨
a,
& Raglin, 2011; Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006; Vosloo, Ostrow, & Watson, 2009).
Despite the popularity of this questionnaire and the associated theoretical model, numerous
concerns have been expressed. The factorial validity of the 27-item CSAI-2 has been called
into question (Coelho, Vasconcelos-Raposo, & Fernandes, 2007; Cox, Martens, & Russell,
2003; Fernandes, Vasconcelos-Raposo, & Fernandes, in press; Lane, Sewell, Terry, Bartram,
& Nesti, 1999; Martinent, Ferrand, Guillet, & Gautheur, 2010; Tsorbatzoudis, Barkoukis,
Sideridis, & Grouios, 2002). In addition, the decision to replace the word worried with con-
cerned, during the original validation process due to a social desirability issue (Martens et al.,
1990) may have compromised the conceptual integrity of the scale, leading to unintended
interpretations by athletes (Burton, 1998; Lane et al., 1999).
Findings from a seminal study by Cox et al. (2003) suggested that the factorial validity
of the CSAI-2 could be improved through a refinement process. In this study, the initial
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 27-item 3-factor model in a calibration sample of
503 athletes showed poor fit to the data. Consequently, sequential item deletion based on
modification indices resulted in the elimination of 10 items (four cognitive anxiety items,
two somatic anxiety items, and four self-confidence items) resulting in a revised 17-item
3-factor model (CSAI-2R). This respecified measure was then tested in a validation sample
with 331 athletes and demonstrated good fit to the data. (Comparative fit index [CFI] =.95,
non-normed fit index [NNFI] =.94 and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] =
.054). Given these results, the authors recommended that clinicians and researchers interested
in assessing anxiety in competitive sport contexts should consider using the CSAI-2R instead
of the original version. Available evidence has provided additional empirical support for the
adoption of the reduced version proposed by Cox et al. (2003) in several other countries,
including Switzerland (Lundqvist & Hassm´
en, 2005), Spain (Fern´
andez, Rio, & Fernandez,
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 379
2007), Estonia (Raudsepp & Kais, 2008), Brazil (Coelho et al., 2010; Fernandes et al., in
press), and France (Martinent et al., 2010).
In addition to the limitations related to the factorial validity of the original CSAI-2 scale,
another concern is that this instrument only assesses the intensity of state anxiety symptoms.
Some researchers have proposed that the intensity of anxiety symptoms is only one char-
acteristic of the anxiety response in that individuals can also perceive that anxiety can be
facilitative or debilitative to their performance (Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Swain
& Jones, 1993). In this regard, Jones and Swain (1992) conducted an empirical study with
athletes from four sports (rugby union, basketball, soccer, and field hockey) that included
a directional dimension in order to better understand athletes’ perceptions of their anxiety
symptoms. This additional dimension was operationally measured as the athlete’s facilitative
(i.e., positive) and debilitative (i.e., negative) interpretation of the anxiety symptoms related
to their performance. Recent reviews (Mellalieu, et al., 2006; Wagstaff, Neil, Mellalieu, &
Hanton, 2011) have outlined important variables and mechanisms that mediate and/or mod-
erate directional interpretations of competitive anxiety as well as research trends associated
with this extant body of literature.
In order to better understand competitive anxiety responses over time, Swain and Jones
(1993) recommended the addition of a frequency dimension to the CSAI-2 scales, which
would allow for the assessment of the amount of time athletes attend to anxiety symp-
toms prior to, and during, a competition. Research has demonstrated that the frequency
of cognitive and somatic anxiety experiences tends to increase during the pre-competition
time period (Hanton, Thomas, & Maynard, 2004; Swain & Jones, 1993). As such, these re-
search advances have extended the knowledge base about anxiety responses at both intra-
(ideographic) and inter-individual (nomothetic) levels (Cerin, 2004; Jones & Hanton, 2001)
making it possible to assess the dynamics of anxiety perceptions using a combination of in-
tensity, frequency, and directional response dimensions (i.e., Thomas, Maynard, & Hanton,
2004).
The usefulness of CFA for validating the dimensional structure of an instrument is now well-
established in sport and exercise psychology measurement (Marsh, 1998). CFA allows for the
testing and comparison of alternative and competing models and allows for the identification of
possible differences in patterns of responses across groups or populations. The factor structure
of the CSAI-2 proposed for the current study originated from some criticism focused on (a)
the semantic nature of some items and the conceptual integrity of the respective factors, (b)
the possibility of allowing items to load on more than one factor (cross-loadings), (c) the
elimination of specific scales of the CSAI-2, and (d) the possible refinement of the factor
structure through item elimination. In order to provide insight to this factor-analytic debate we
aimed to identify the best-fitting model structure for each of the CSAI-2 response dimensions
(intensity, direction, and frequency) using CFA procedures.
Despite the extensive interest in, and use of, the CSAI-2 instrument, only one study, to the
best of our knowledge, has tested the factorial validity of the CSAI-2 when frequency and
directionality dimensions have been included. This study was conducted by Martinent et al.
(2010) who conducted a CFA to investigate the factor structure and internal reliability of the
CSAI-2R scales in a sample of 642 French athletes. Support for the internal consistency of
the instrument was found with Cronbach alpha levels ranging from .76 and .83 in this study.
The CFA results showed acceptable fit to the data for the 3-factor model (cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self-confidence) of intensity, direction, and frequency dimensions through
evaluations of their respective indices. However, an alternative 3-factor, 16-item model in
which the first somatic anxiety item was removed showed a better resultant fit to the data for
all dimensions. The authors concluded that the results provided support for the reliability and
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
380 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
factorial validity of the French version of the CSAI-2R (16 items) with the inclusion of the
direction and frequency dimensions.
More research is needed to examine the psychometric properties of the CSAI-2 through the
inclusion of the frequency and direction dimensions, in addition to the intensity dimension,
especially in non-North American and non-European contexts. Sport psychology in South
America, particularly in Brazil, has demonstrated major recent growth (Samulski & Becker,
2005) making the availability of valid and reliable measures necessary for the examination
of psychological processes outside of the traditional North American and European cultural
contexts. Additionally, the present study aimed to extend the research conducted by Martinent
et al. (2010) by testing alternative models proposed in the literature. The present study adds
to previous research by using a more heterogeneous sample (greater variability in type of
sports, years of practice, and competitive experience) and an older sample than was included
in Martinent et al.’s (2010) study of which more than 71% of the total sample was school
handball players aged 13–18 years. Along with possible developmental considerations that
may influence the measurement process (Brustad, 1998), it is plausible to call into question
the generalizability of Martinent et al.’s (2010) findings and additional research involving a
unique cultural setting can provide insight into this issue.
The specific purposes of the present study were threefold. A primary purpose was to
examine the factorial validity and reliability of the CSAI-2 that included the intensity, direction
and frequency dimensions of anxiety. A secondary purpose was to examine the inter-scale
associations among the three measured dimensions and the correlations between the original
and the reduced scales. A third purpose was to examine the psychometric properties of the
CSAI-2 within a cultural context that has been infrequently studied, in this case involving
Portuguese-speaking athletes from Brazil.
METHOD
Sample
A non-probabilistic sample of 334 athletes (245 male, 89 female) aged 16 to 68 years (M
=25.11, SD =8.85) voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. The athletes had between
one and 42 years of sport practice (M=10.05, SD =7.86) and between one and 33 years of
competitive experience (M=7.31, SD =5.77). No significant differences were found for age
and competitive experience between males and females ( p>.05).
The participants were involved in a variety of sports including soccer (19%), indoor soccer
(21%), volleyball (25%), handball (4%), basketball (3%) tennis (2%), judo (1.5%), jujitsu
(4.5%), karate (1%), track and field (7%), surfing (1%), swimming (8%), footvolley (1%),
and motorcycling (4%). Overall, 28% of the athletes practiced individual sports, while the
remaining 72% practiced team sports. With respect to competitive level, 78% of the athletes
competed at the regional level, 21% competed at the state level, and the remaining 1% competed
at the national level.
Participants were drawn from state and regional competitions located in the south and
northeast regions of Brazil. A snowball sampling strategy was employed, using competition
organizers and coaches to facilitate the recruitment of participants.
Instruments
Athletes completed a Brazilian-Portuguese version (Coelho, Vasconcelos-Raposo, &
Mahl, 2010) of the original CSAI-2 (Martens et al., 1990) that included the direction and
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 381
the frequency response dimensions. This instrument consists of 27 items measuring three
dimensions: cognitive anxiety (Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25), somatic anxiety
(Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 26) and self-confidence (Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24,
and 27). The intensity response dimension was rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
1(not at all)to4(very much). The direction dimension was responded to on a bipolar 7-point
Likert scale ranging from −3(very debilitative/ negative)to+3(very facilitative/positive),
according to the perception of debilitative or facilitative symptoms, with 0 indicating that
the athlete perceived that the symptom was unimportant (Jones & Swain, 1992). Finally, the
frequency dimension (Swain & Jones, 1993) was also rated on a 7-point Likert scale anchored
by 1 (never) and 7 (very often). Responses to items for the CSAI-2 scales ranged from 1 to 4
(intensity dimension), from −3to+3(directionality dimension), and from 1 to 7 ( frequency
dimension). The possible range of scores for each CSAI-2 scale, thus, varied from 9 to 36 for
intensity, from −27 to +27 for direction and from 9 to 63 for frequency.
Procedures
Initially, the research project was submitted to the Institutional Research Ethics Committee
of the State University of Santa Cruz (UESC), in accordance with the Brazilian Resolution
(CNS/MS No.196/1996), from whom it received full approval (Protocol 425/2010). Next,
competition organizers and coaches were contacted for authorization to approach the athletes in
order to collect the data. Finally, the athletes were informed of the objectives of the investigation
and completed informed consent materials that guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality
throughout the data collection and retention procedures. Parental consent was obtained for
athletes younger than 18 years. Participants completed the questionnaire individually 1 hr
prior to their competition in a quiet room. Athletes were instructed to respond to the CSAI-2
items according to how they felt at the present moment and received instructions designed to
minimize social desirability bias as recommended by Martens et al. (1990).
Model Description
Six orthogonal measurement models were specified and tested for all CSAI-2 response
dimensions according to the nested factor models identified in the scholarly literature. Model
1 reflected the original 3-factor model (27 items) proposed by Martens et al. (1990). Model
2 was a 2-factor model (27 items) that differentiated anxiety from the self-confidence items.
Model 3 included a 2-factor structure (17 items) proposed by Tsorbatzoudis et al. (2002) that
included cognitive anxiety (without Item 25) and somatic anxiety factors. Model 4 consisted
of a bidimensional model proposed by Coelho et al. (2007) that eliminated the somatic anxiety
factor (18 items). Model 5 represented the reduced 3-factor CSAI-2R model (17 items)
suggested by Cox et al. (2003). Model 6 was similar to the CSAI-2R with the exception of the
elimination of the first somatic anxiety item and represented the model proposed by Martinent
et al. (2010).
Data Analyses
Factorial validity of the measurement models previously proposed in the literature was
tested through CFA (AMOS 16.0). Covariance matrices were used as input for the maximum
likelihood (ML) method of estimation procedures and a minimum of 10 observations per
item was respected (Ding, Velicer, & Harlow, 1995). The adjustment of the tested models
was evaluated using a set of relative and absolute fit indices, namely: model Chi-square (χ2),
normed Chi-square (χ2/df ), comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), and root
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
382 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) values
were also included as an additional measure for comparing the fit of competing/alternative
models. A better model adjustment is expressed by higher values of CFI and NNFI and lower
values of χ2,χ2/df , RMSEA and AIC. Definitions, assumptions and characteristics of these
indices are beyond the scope of the present article and can be consulted elsewhere (e.g., Kline,
2010). Usually, indices greater than .90 for CFI and NNFI and lower than 3.0 for χ2/df and
.08 for RMSEA are interpreted as indicating acceptable fit (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Browne
& Cudeck, 1993; Ullman, 2001). Hu and Bentler (1999) have suggested more stringent cut-off
values of .95 for CFI and NNFI and .06 for RMSEA, which are considered evidence of good fit.
Descriptive statistics (Mand SD) were calculated for all scales. Skewness and kurtosis
coefficients were computed for univariate normality analysis purposes. Cronbach’s alphas were
calculated to measure the internal consistency of the items loading on each of the factors. Inter-
scale associations for all response dimensions were calculated using Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients. These statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 16.0).
RESULTS
Preliminary descriptive analysis of the data indicated that all univariate normality coef-
ficients of the items were within the range of −1.5 to +1.5. These skewness and kurtosis
absolute values were considered to be normally distributed (Kline, 2010). Mean item values
ranged from 1.89 ±.94 (Item 4) to 3.34 ±.90 (Item 27) for the intensity dimension; from
.08 ±1.75 (Item 2) to 1.84 ±1.53 (Item 27) for the directionality dimension; and from 2.43
±1.36 (Item 4) to 5.07 ±1.24 (Item 15) for the frequency dimension.
Tabl e 1
Summary of fit indices from CFA of the distinct response dimensions and CSAI-2 models
Models χ2χ2/df CFI NNFI RMSEA AIC
Intensity
M1: 3-factor (27 items) 889.46 2.77 .863 .850 .073 1003.46
M2: 2-factor (27 items) 1222.79 3.79 .782 .764 .091 1332.79
M3: 2-factor (17 items) 321.48 2.72 .920 .908 .072 391.48
M4: 2-factor (18 items) 286.37 2.14 .937 .928 .058 360.37
M5: 3-factor (17 items) 246.63 2.13 .946 .937 .058 320.63
M6: 3-factor (16 items) 214.53 2.12 .951 .942 .058 284.53
Direction
M1: 3-factor (27 items) 958.69 2.99 .886 .875 .077 1072.69
M2: 2-factor (27 items) 1119.49 3.47 .857 .845 .086 1229.49
M3: 2-factor (17 items) 440.52 3.73 .895 .879 .091 510.52
M4: 2-factor (18 items) 303.77 2.27 .953 .946 .062 377.77
M5: 3-factor (17 items) 291.56 2.51 .946 .937 .067 365.56
M6: 3-factor (16 items) 243.06 2.41 .954 .946 .065 313.06
Frequency
M1: 3-factor (27 items) 926.53 2.89 .824 .807 .075 1040.53
M2: 2-factor (27 items) 1162.11 3.60 .756 .735 .088 1272.11
M3: 2-factor (17 items) 374.15 3.17 .869 .849 .081 444.15
M4: 2-factor (18 items) 375.77 2.80 .892 .877 .074 449.77
M5: 3-factor (17 items) 292.66 2.52 .908 .901 .068 366.66
M6: 3-factor (16 items) 241.43 2.39 .923 .908 .065 311.43
Note:Allχ2values are significant ( p<.01)
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 383
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Results of the CFA were performed to examine the factorial structure of CSAI-2 by each
response dimension (intensity, direction, and frequency) and are summarized in Table 1.
Overall, results revealed that Models 1, 2, and 3 did not provide acceptable fit with relatively
poor resultant NNFI and the RMSEA indices. The poorest fit indices were observed for Models
1 and 2 and included all 27 items of the original CSAI-2. Model 4 revealed an adequate fit
to the data for the intensity and direction dimensions, but did not provide adequate fit for
the data on the frequency dimension. However, when the reduced 3-factor CSAI-2R models
were examined (M5 and M6), the fit indices results clearly indicated better-fitting models
with Model 6 (16 items) providing the best fit across all response dimensions. Based on
previous studies (e.g., Fernandes et al., 2012; Martinent et al., 2010) and on examination of
the modification indices, correlated errors were added between items of the same scale. Thus,
a covariance between the errors of the third and fifth somatic anxiety items was added for the
intensity and frequency dimensions and between the fourth and fifth self-confidence items for
the direction dimension. This process resulted in a superior fit for all dimensions: intensity
(CFI =.960, NNFI =.952, RMSEA =.053), direction (CFI =.964, NNFI =.956, RMSEA =
.058), and frequency (CFI =.941, NNFI =.929, RMSEA =.057). The standardized loadings,
error variances and latent correlations are shown in Figure 1.
Taking into consideration these findings, an orthogonal 9-factor model (48 items plus
the 3 previous correlated errors) was tested, which also included the intensity, direction and
frequency dimensions. This measurement model also permitted correlation between error
terms of items loading on similar dimensions (e.g., first item of the self-confidence intensity,
direction, and frequency factors). The CFA results revealed a good fit to the data (CFI =.941,
NNFI =.933, RMSEA =.040). Although some high factor intercorrelations were observed,
the elimination of these related scales (e.g., self-confidence direction and somatic anxiety
intensity) did not significantly improve the fit of the data (CFI =.006 and RMSEA =.000).
Reliability Analysis
In relation to the CSAI-2’s internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were com-
puted for the original and reduced versions of the instrument. As reported in Table 2, all factors
Tabl e 2
Internal consistency estimates
CSAI-2 – 27 items CSAI-2R – 16 items
Dimension/Scales α(no. items) α(no. items)
Intensity
Cognitive anxiety .89 (9) .84 (5)
Somatic anxiety .87 (9) .88 (6)
Self-confidence .87 (9) .84 (5)
Direction
Cognitive anxiety .91 (9) .88 (5)
Somatic anxiety .88 (9) .88 (6)
Self-confidence .93 (9) .90 (5)
Frequency
Cognitive anxiety .87 (9) .83 (5)
Somatic anxiety .82 (9) .79 (6)
Self-confidence .84 (9) .80 (5)
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
.56
.
72
.
69
-.27
.
73
.75
.74
.79
.
82
.
75
.67
Item 5(10)
Item 2(7)
.
56
.78
.60
.75
.56
.77
Item 14(22)
.60 .71
.57
Item 4(8)
.55
.65
.42
.80
.53
Item 12(20)
.64
.77
Item 15(23)
.54
.49
Item 17(26)
.59
.75
.65
Item 3(9)
.56
.81
.85
.72
.79
Item 13(24)
.62
.79
Item 16(27)
.63
Cognitive
anxiety
direction
Self-
confidenc
e
direction
Item 7(15)
Item 11(16)
Item 9(17)
.47
Item 5(10)
Item 2(7)
.
52
.75
Item 8(13)
.57
.73
.54
.65
Item 14(22)
.42 .46
.66
.71
Item 6(11)
.50
Item 4(8)
.44
.31 -.48
.
52
.74
Item 12(20)
.54
.54
Item 15(23)
.28
-.27
Item 17(26)
.29
.60
.50
Item 3(9)
.36
.71
.77
.60
.65
.43
.60
Item 16(27)
.36
Cognitive
anxiety
frequency
Self-
confidenc
e
frequency
Item 7(15)
Item 11(16)
.
70
.
71
.49
Item 5(10)
Item 2(7)
.
51
.72
Item 8(13)
.52
.73
.54
.73
Item 14(22)
.53 .52
.69
.78
Item 6(11)
.60
Item 4(8)
.48
.72
.51
.
75
.80
Item 12(20)
.64
.74
Item 15(23)
.56
-.04
Item 17(26)
.54
.67
.49
Item 3(9)
.44
.70
.62
.69
.47
.71
Item 16(27)
.50
Cognitive
anxiety
intensity
Self-
confidenc
e
intensity
Item 11(16)
Item 9(17)
Item 13(24)
Somatic
anxiety
intensity
Item 7(15)
Item 10(18)
Somatic
anxiety
direction
Item 8(13)
Somatic
anxiety
frequency
Item 10(18)
Item 13(24)
Item 10(18)
Item 6(11)
Item 9(17)
Figure 1. Measurement model with 16 items and three factors (CSAI-2R) for the intensity, direction and frequency dimensions. Item numbers
from the original CSAI-2 are presented in parenthesis. All loading are significant at p<.05. Circles represent latent constructs, residual variances
are presented in small circles and boxes represent observed variables.
384
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 385
Tabl e 3
Means, standard deviations and zero-order inter-scale correlations of the CSAI-2R (16
items) scales
Variable 12345678 9
1. Cognitive anxiety intensity (.97) .53 −.27 −.54 −.37 −.47 .68 .47 −.44
2. Somatic anxiety intensity (.96) −.04 −.13 −.34 −.24 −.33 .79 −.24
3. Self-confidence intensity (.93) .33 .26 .70 −.29 −.12 .55
4. Cognitive anxiety direction (.97) .71 .53 −.47 −.13 .44
5. Somatic anxiety direction (.96) .49 −.28 −.28 .34
6. Self-confidence direction (.96) −.41 −.22 .61
7. Cognitive anxiety frequency (.96) .46 −.48
8. Somatic anxiety frequency (.96) −.27
9. Self-confidence frequency (.92)
Means 2.10 2.12 3.32 .44 .49 1.75 2.95 3.06 4.91
Standard deviations .74 .80 .65 1.50 1.26 1.28 1.14 1.06 1.03
Note: Correlations above |.10| are p<.05; Correlations above |.15| are p<.01. Correlations between the original and
the respective CSAI-2R scales are presented in the diagonal in parentheses.
had alpha coefficients greater than the .70 cut-off value usually recommended. Additionally,
it is evident that the reduction of items per scale did not considerably decrease the scale’s
reliabilities for the response dimensions.
Correlational and Descriptive Analysis
The zero-order correlations between the CSAI-2R (16 items) factors and the means and
standard deviations of these scales are presented in Table 3. Correlations between the original
and the respective CSAI-2R scales are presented on the diagonal in parentheses.
Results of the correlational analyses revealed higher positive coefficients (rs> .60) between
equivalent scales for different response dimensions: cognitive anxiety intensity and frequency,
somatic anxiety intensity and frequency, self-confidence intensity and direction, and self-
confidence direction and frequency. Moreover, a strong association was also identified between
cognitive and somatic anxiety direction (r=.71). Additionally, reasonably large positive
correlations (rs> .40) were observed between cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity, self-
confidence intensity and frequency, cognitive anxiety and self-confidence direction, cognitive
anxiety direction and self-confidence frequency, somatic anxiety and self-confidence direction,
and cognitive and somatic anxiety frequency. On the other hand, moderate-to-large negative
correlations (rs>−.40) were found between cognitive anxiety intensity and direction, cognitive
anxiety intensity and self-confidence frequency, cognitive anxiety direction and intensity,
self-confidence direction and cognitive anxiety intensity, and cognitive anxiety intensity and
self-confidence intensity. Only a small, nonsignificant association was found between somatic
anxiety and self-confidence intensity (r=−.04, p> .05). Finally, correlations between the
original and the reduced scales were extremely high (rs> .90).
DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to examine the factorial validity and reliability of the intensity,
direction and frequency response dimensions of the Brazilian version of the CSAI-2 and to
examine the inter-scale correlations among the three measured dimensions. To the best of
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
386 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
our knowledge, this is the second study to examine the psychometric properties of each the
response dimensions of CSAI-2 through CFA and the first to perform this analysis using a
Portuguese-language sample. Therefore, we expect that our study might provide additional
empirical evidence relative to the use of this questionnaire in order to better understand
athletes’ anxiety and self-confidence patterns prior to competition.
Reliability analysis demonstrated that the original model of the CSAI-2 (9 items per factor)
achieved good levels of internal consistency with Cronbach alpha levels exceeding .80, which
is consistent with previous research (Coelho et al. 2007; Fern´
andez et al. 2007; Lundqvist &
Hassm´
en, 2005; Martens et al., 1990; Raudsepp & Kais, 2008). Nevertheless, our study also
revealed that the reduction in the number of items per scale (CSAI-2R) did not compromise
the measure’s internal consistency for any of the response dimensions. Moreover, only one
subscale (somatic anxiety frequency) had a Cronbach’s alpha value (slightly) lower than .80,
which provides support for the internal consistency of the reduced scales. These results are
consistent with previous studies that also tested the reduced model (16 or 17 items) of the
CSAI-2R (Cox et al. 2003; Fernandes et al., 2012; Martinent et al., 2010). Taking this evidence
into consideration, it is also possible to suggest that these high reliability values for all response
dimensions support the ideographic application of this scale in some applied settings for the
purpose of individual assessment since it has been recommended that the reliability values
should exceed .80 for this purpose (Abell, Springer, & Kamata, 2009).
Regarding the factorial validity of the CSAI-2, six measurement models were specified and
tested that reflect the competing factor models identified in the scholarly literature. Concerning
the first two models that contained 27 items, the CFA did not provide adequate fit to the data,
which is in line with previous research (Coelho et al. 2007; Cox et al., 2003; Fernandes et al.,
2012; Lane et al., 1999; Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2002). Thus, the inclusion of all the CSAI-2
items resulted in measurement concerns given the low CFA factor loadings of some items.
Similar results were also obtained for the 2-factor models although fit indices were adequate
for some response dimensions (Model 3 for intensity and Model 4 for intensity and direction).
As such, these results also revealed that eliminating a specific factor from the original CSAI-2
model does not necessarily improve its factorial validity across all response dimensions.
Some authors have recently proposed that the controversy surrounding the CSAI-2 factor
structure could be resolved through a refinement of the instrument (Cox et al., 2003; Martinent
et al., 2010). These recommendations were based on theoretically and empirically guided
modifications that aimed to maintain the 3-factor theoretical structure of the original instrument
(Cox et al., 2003). Previous research has demonstrated the superior fit of the CSAI-2R model
(17 items) across several different cultures and languages (Coelho et al., 2010; Fernandes
et al., 2012; Fern´
andez, Rio, & Fernandez, 2007; Lundqvist & Hassm´
en, 2005; Raudsepp
& Kais, 2008) although only the intensity dimension was examined in these studies. The
only known study that tested this model across all three response dimensions (Martinent
et al., 2010) provided support for the reliability and validity of this reduced model but the
elimination of the first somatic anxiety item was suggested. In terms of the present study, the
obtained results clearly support the reduced three-factor model for all response dimensions.
Moreover, the elimination of one somatic anxiety item as suggested by Martinent et al. (2010),
and the addition of two correlated errors between items of the same scale, resulted in a
superior fit to the data (CFIs > .94 and RMSEAs <.60) for the intensity, direction and
frequency dimensions. Consequently, present findings replicate and extend previous research,
indicating that a reduced three-factor structure represents the best-fitting model for the CSAI-
2 response dimensions for these Brazilian athletes. Based on these indices of reliability and
validity, researchers and practitioners are now able to investigate the experience of anxiety
interpretation among Brazilian athletes across each of the response dimensions. To extend
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 387
current knowledge, researchers are encouraged to use a multilevel mixed-method approach to
examine possible intra- and inter-individual differences in the anxiety interpretation process
(Cerin, 2004; Mellalieu, et al., 2006; Wagstaff et al., 2011).
A significant development in multidimensional competitive anxiety in general, and in re-
lation to the original CSAI-2, in particular, has been the introduction of additional response
dimensions: the direction and frequency dimensions. Consequently, available evidence has pro-
vided some support for Jones’s (1995) control model, which states that the athlete’s perception
of control based on his or her interpretation of anxiety symptoms is critical to understanding
the anxiety-performance relationship (Mellalieu et al., 2006; Wagstaff et al., 2011). Cheng,
Hardy, and Markland (2009) developed an alternative three-dimensional conceptualization
to measure performance anxiety, which presents “...the first theoretical model in sport psy-
chology that explicitly highlights the potentially adaptive nature of anxiety and includes a
regulatory dimension” (p. 277). According to these authors, a regulatory dimension of anxiety
should not be characterized by symptom interpretation but rather it should reflect an athlete’s
perceived control. Bearing in mind these theoretical and operational differences, future inves-
tigations should not only seek to provide psychometric examination of this new measure but
also to investigate the predictive validity of the model in explaining performance. The avail-
ability of more reliable, valid, and sound measures is unquestionably a critical aspect to the
development and implementation of more focused and effective sport psychology programs
among Portuguese-speaking and Brazilian athletes.
Regarding the second aim of the present study, the results of the correlational analysis
among the CSAI-2R factors were consistent with previous studies (Hanton et al., 2002; Jones,
1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Martens et al., 1990; Thomas et al. 2004). Jones and Hanton
(2001) advocated for the importance of considering the directionality of anxiety and suggested
that the self-confidence factor of the direction scale should be discarded because they found
a strong relationship (r=.82) with its intensity equivalent. The strong correlation in this case
indicates that both factors are likely measuring the same construct. Our results are somewhat
similar to the Jones and Hanton (2001) findings although the correlation was not quite as strong
(r=.70). Nevertheless, the elimination of the self-confidence direction and somatic anxiety
intensity scales from the 9-factor model did not significantly improve the fit of the data.
For each response dimension, it was possible to verify that the pattern of the inter-scale
correlations supported the hypothesized relationships proposed by multidimensional anxiety
theory (Martens et al., 1990). Additionally, the simultaneous inclusion of the three response
dimensions in the 9-factor model also provided a good fit to the data, supporting its psychome-
tric properties and indicating that the factors are correlated, but not necessarily identical (Mr2
=15.67% with values between .16 and 62.41%). Finally, the very high correlations between
the original and the reduced scales corroborate the previous results regarding the reliability of
the measure in comparisons among versions (Table 2) since the item elimination process did
not result in a less reliable version of the original scale. This novel evidence extends previous
research using the CSAI-2R by revealing substantial equivalence between the original and the
reduced scales.
Some limitations should be considered regarding the obtained results. First, the CSAI-2R
was administered to the athletes 1 hr prior to competition. It is known that athlete anxiety
responses vary with proximity to the competition, including within the final hour prior to
competition (Hanton et al., 2004) and these results may not represent athletes’ anxiety and
self-confidence characteristics at the moment in which they initiated competition. Second,
the present sample was comprised of athletes who varied considerably by sport type, sex,
and competitive level and it is possible that response patterns varied in relation to these
characteristics.
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
388 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
The present results have a number of important implications for applied practice. CFA and
reliability analyses supported the use of a reduced version (16 items) of the original CSAI-2,
which is an important consideration in enabling a quicker administration of the instrument prior
to competition. These results also supported the importance of considering both intensity and
directional characteristics of anxiety responses. In addition, the high internal reliability values
for the scales across all response dimensions provides support for the logic of assessing the
independent contributions of intensity, direction, and frequency components of competitive
state anxiety. The use of the CSAI-2R instrument through an idiographic approach is also
recommended since this method can facilitate professional practice by enabling athletes,
coaches, and sport psychologists to better identify individualistic patterns of anxiety and self-
confidence characteristics prior to, and during, sport competition (Cerin, 2004; Smith, Smoll,
& Schutz, 1990; Swain, & Jones, 1993).
At the most applied level, these results provide support for the logic of using the CSAI-2R
instrument prior to competition to understand anxiety and self-confidence characteristics of
athletes. Moreover, our results also support the use of the CSAI-2R as a reliable and valid
measure to be used in sport psychology interventions with Brazilian athletes varying by gender,
type of sport and competitive level.
In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that the revised factor structure of the CSAI-
2 model (16 items) revealed good psychometric properties (reliability and factorial validity)
for all response dimensions (intensity, direction, and frequency) and is a valid measure for
use in assessing competitive state anxiety and self-confidence. In addition, the inter-scale
correlations among the three measured dimensions were significant (with the exception of the
somatic anxiety and self-confidence intensity relationship) and in accordance with previous
theoretical and empirical evidence reported in the scholarly literature. This research should
help to extend the sport psychology knowledge to other cultural contexts and to facilitate
applied practices in these settings.
REFERENCES
Abell, N., Springer, D. W., & Kamata, A. (2009). Developing and validating rapidassessment instruments.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bentler, P., & Bonnet, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin,88, 588–606.
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brustad, R. J. (1998). Developmental considerations in sport and exercise psychology measurement. In J.
Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 461–470). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Burton, D. (1998). Measuring competitive state anxiety. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 129–148). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Cerin, E. (2004). Predictors of competitive anxiety direction in male Tae Kwon Do practitioners: A
multilevel mixed idiographic/nomothetic interactional approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
5, 497–516.
Cheng, W.-N. K., Hardy, L., & Markland, D. (2009). Toward a three-dimensional conceptualization of
performance anxiety: Rationale and initial measurement development. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise,10, 271–278.
Coelho, E., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Fernandes, H. M. (2007). An´
alise factorial confirmat´
oria da
vers˜
ao portuguesa do CSAI-2 [Confirmatory factor analysis of the Portuguese version of the CSAI-
2]. Motricidade,3(3), 73–82.
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 389
Coelho, E., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Mahl, A. C. (2010). Confirmatory factorial analysis of the
Brazilian version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). The Spanish Journal of
Psychology,13(1), 453–460.
Cox, R. H., Martens, M., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,25, 519–533.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship between the Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology,25, 44–65.
Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number indicators
per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation
Modeling,2, 119–144.
Fernandes, M. G., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Fernandes, H. M. (2012). Propriedades psicom´
etricas do
CSAI-2 em atletas brasileiros [Psychometric properties of the CSAI-2 among Brazilian athletes].
Psicologia: Reflex˜
ao e Cr´
ıtica,25, 679–687.
Fer n ´
andez,E.M.,Rio,G.L.,&Fern
´
andez, C. A. (2007). Propriedades psicom´
etricas de la version
espanola del inventario de ansiedade competitiva CSAI-2R en deportistas [Psychometric proper-
ties of the Spanish version of the Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 with athletes].
Psicothema,19(1), 150–155.
Hanton, S., Thomas, O., & Maynard, I. (2004). Competitive anxiety responses in the week leading up
to competition: The role of intensity, direction and frequency dimensions. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise,15, 169–181.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.
Jones, J. G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety research. The
Psychologist,4, 152–155.
Jones, J. G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in
sport. British Journal of Psychology,85, 449–478.
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and directional anxiety interpretations.
Journal of Sports Sciences,19, 385–395.
Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and
relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills,74, 467–472.
Jones, G., Swain, A. B., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state
anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports Sciences,11, 525–532.
J¨
oreskog, K. G., & S¨
orbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific
Software.
Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.
Lane, A., Sewell, D., Terry, P., Bartram, D., & Nesti, M. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sports Sciences,17, 505–512.
Lundqvist, C., & Hassm´
en, N. P. (2005). Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2): Evaluating
the Swedish version by confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Sports Sciences,23, 727–736.
Lundqvist, C., Kentt¨
a, G., & Raglin, J. S. (2011). Directional anxiety responses in elite and sub-elite
young athletes: Intensity of anxiety symptoms matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science
in Sports,21(6), 853–862.
Marsh, H. (1998). Foreword. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement
(pp. xv–xix). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Martinent, G., Ferrand, C., Guillet, E., & Gautheur, S. (2010). Validation of the French version of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 Revised (CSAI-2R) including frequency and direction
scales. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,11, 51–57.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2006). A competitive anxiety review: Recent directions
in sport psychology research. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport
psychology (pp. 1–45). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
390 M. G. FERNANDES ET AL.
Raudsepp, L., & Kais, K. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory-2 among Estonian athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology,6, 85–95.
Samulski, D. M., & Becker, B. (2005). Educational programs for sport and exercise psychology in South
America. In D. Hackfort, J. L. Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Applied Sport and
Exercise Psychology: International Perspectives (pp. 411–417). Morgantown: Fitness Information
Technology.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive
and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research,2, 263–280.
Swain, A. B., & Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimensions of competitive state anxiety.
Journal of Sport Sciences,11, 533–542.
Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2004). Temporal aspects of competitive anxiety and self-
confidence as a function of anxiety perceptions. The Sport Psychologist,18, 172–188.
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Barkoukis, V., Sideridis, G., & Grouios, G. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of
the Greek version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2). International Journal of
Sport Psychology,33, 182–194.
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (2001). Using
multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vasconcelos-Raposo, J. (1993). Os factores psico-s´
ocio-culturais que influenciam e determinam a busca
da excelˆ
encia pelos atletas de elite desportiva portuguesa [Psycho-socio-cultural factors that
influence and determine the pursuit of excellence by elite Portuguese athletes] (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Universidade de Tr´
as-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.
Vasconcelos-Raposo, J. (2000). Explorando as limitac¸˜
oes do conceito de ansiedade no desporto [Ex-
ploring the limitations of the anxiety concept in sport]. ALEU: Revista de Desporto da UTAD,2,
47–66.
Vosloo, J., Ostrow, A., & Watson, J. C. (2009). The relationships between motivational climate, goal
orientations, anxiety, and self-confidence among swimmers. Journal of Sport Behavior,32(3),
376–393.
Wagstaff, C. R., Neil, R., Mellalieu, S. D., & Hanton, S. (2011). Key movements in directional research
in competitive anxiety. In J. Thatcher, M. M. Jones & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Coping and emotion in
sport (pp. 143–166). Abingdon: Routledge.
APPENDIX
Portuguese-language version of the CSAI-2
INSTRUC¸˜
OES: A seguir transcrevem-se algumas afirmac¸˜
oes que os atletas usam para
descrever os seus sentimentos antes da competic¸˜
ao. Leia cada uma delas e assinale com um
c´
ırculo, para cada afirmac¸˜
ao, o n´
umero que melhor indicar como se sente neste momento. N˜
ao
h´
a respostas certas nem erradas.
1. Estou preocupado(a) porque posso n˜
ao render t˜
ao bem como poderia nesta competic¸˜
ao
2. Sinto o meu corpo tenso
3. Sinto-me autoconfiante
4. Estou preocupado(a) pelo fato de poder perder
5. Sinto tens˜
ao no meu estˆ
omago
6. Estou preocupado(a) pelo fato de poder falhar sob press˜
ao da competic¸˜
ao
7. Estou confiante de que posso corresponder ao desafio que me ´
e colocado
8. Estou preocupado pelo fato de poder ter um mau rendimento
9. O meu corac¸˜
ao est´
a batendo muito r´
apido
10. Estou confiante de que vou ter um bom rendimento
11. Sinto o meu estˆ
omago “`
as voltas”
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CSAI-2 391
12. Estou preocupado(a) pelo fato de os outros poderem ficar desapontados com o meu
rendimento
13. As minhas m˜
aos est˜
ao frias e ´
umidas
14. Estou confiante porque me imagino, mentalmente, a atingir o meu objetivo.
15. Sinto o meu corpo r´
ıgido
16. Estou confiante em conseguir ultrapassar os obst´
aculos sob a press˜
ao da competic¸˜
ao
NOTAS: As respostas `
as diferentes dimens˜
oes devem ser dadas de acordo com as seguintes
escalas:
Intensidade: 1 =Nada, 2 =Pouco, 3 =Moderadamente, 4 =Muito
Direc¸˜
ao: −3=Dificulta muito, −2=Dificulta, −1=Dificulta pouco, 0 =Nada, +1=
Facilita pouco, +2=Facilita, +3=Facilita muito
Frequˆ
encia: 1 =Nunca, 2 =Raramente, 3 =Poucas vezes, 4 =Algumas vezes, 5 =Muitas
vezes, 6 =Quase sempre, 7 =Sempre
Oc
´
alculo do escore das escalas ´
e obtido pela soma das respostas, dividida pelo n´
umero
de itens e multiplicado por 10. As escalas s˜
ao constitu´
ıdas pelos seguintes itens: Ansiedade
cognitiva: 1, 4, 6, 8, 12; Ansiedade som´
atica: 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15; Autoconfianc¸a:3,7,10,
14, 16.
Downloaded by [179.163.219.224] at 07:18 25 June 2013
