Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) are 20-item companion measures of social anxiety symptoms frequently used to evaluate outcome in treatment trials. The SIAS-6, SPS-6, and Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS) are promising short forms of the SIAS and SPS. The current study evaluated whether it is sound to use these short scales instead of the full-length instruments to measure outcome in social anxiety disorder (SAD) treatment studies, using data from a trial in which 255 adults with SAD were treated with traditional or imagery-enhanced group cognitive-behavioral therapy. Several deficiencies with the short forms were identified including ceiling effects, inflated variances, imprecise effect size estimates, and a loss of statistical power when testing for between-treatment differences. Using the short forms can alter the substantive findings of a treatment trial, as genuine differences in efficacy between treatments can be missed. We recommend treatment outcome be measured using the full SIAS and SPS rather than the SIPS, SIAS-6, and SPS-6. The full-length instruments provide precise estimates of treatment effects and maximize the chance of detecting between-treatment differences when they exist. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Brief Form of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI-B) for Adolescents

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and the Social Phobia Scale (SPS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) are companion scales developed to measure anxiety in social interaction and performance situations, respectively. The measures have strong discriminant and convergent validity; however, their factor structures remain debated, and furthermore, the combined administration length (i.e., 39 items) can be prohibitive for some settings. There have been 4 attempts to assess the factor structures of the scales and reduce the item content: the 14-item Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS; Carleton et al., 2009), the 12-item SIAS-6/SPS-6 (Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, Rapee, & Mattick, 2012), the 21-item abbreviated SIAS/SPS (ASIAS/ASPS; Kupper & Denollet, 2012), and the 12-item Readability SIAS and SPS (RSIAS/RSPS; Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, Gier-Lonsway, & Kim, 2012). The current study compared the short forms on (a) factor structure, (b) ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical populations, (c) sensitivity to change following therapy, and (d) convergent validity with related measures. Participants included 3,607 undergraduate students (55% women) and 283 patients with social anxiety disorder (43% women). Results of confirmatory factor analyses, sensitivity analyses, and correlation analyses support the robust utility of items in the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 relative to the other short forms; furthermore, the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 were also supported by convergent validity analyses within the undergraduate sample. The RSIAS/RSPS and the ASIAS/ASPS were least supported, based on the current results and the principle of parsimony. Accordingly, researchers and clinicians should consider carefully which of the short forms will best suit their needs.

Culturally validated rating scales for social anxiety disorder (SAD) are of significant importance when screening for the disorder, as well as for evaluating treatment efficacy. This study examined construct validity and additional psychometric properties of two commonly used scales, the Social Phobia Scale and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, in a clinical SAD population (n = 180) and in a normal population (n = 614) in Sweden. Confirmatory factor analyses of previously reported factor solutions were tested but did not reveal acceptable fit. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of the joint structure of the scales in the total population yielded a two-factor model (performance anxiety and social interaction anxiety), whereas EFA in the clinical sample revealed a three-factor solution, a social interaction anxiety factor and two performance anxiety factors. The SPS and SIAS showed good to excellent internal consistency, and discriminated well between patients with SAD and a normal population sample. Both scales showed good convergent validity with an established measure of SAD, whereas the discriminant validity of symptoms of social anxiety and depression could not be confirmed. The optimal cut-off score for SPS and SIAS were 18 and 22 points, respectively. It is concluded that the factor structure and the additional psychometric properties of SPS and SIAS support the use of the scales for assessment in a Swedish population.

BackgroundThe Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) are widely used self-report questionnaires to assess symptoms of social anxiety. While SPS measures social performance anxiety, SIAS measures social interaction anxiety. They are mostly reported simultaneously, but there have not been consistent results of the joint factor structure and therefore no consistent recommendations on how to use and evaluate the questionnaires. This study aimed (1) to evaluate the underlying joint factor structure of the SPS and SIAS and (2) to test whether SPS and SIAS are reliable scales to assess two different aspects of social anxiety.MethodsThe one-factor, two-factor, and bifactor models were tested in a clinical sample recruited from the community and diagnosed with a social anxiety disorder. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted, bifactor-specific indices were calculated, and the content of the less fitting items was examined.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses showed that the best-fitting model was the bifactor model with a reduced set of items. The bifactor-specific indices showed that the factor structure cannot be considered unidimensional and that SPS and SIAS are reliable subscales. A closer examination of the less fitting item content and implications for future studies are discussed.ConclusionsIn conclusion, SPS and SIAS can be reported together as an overall score of social anxiety and are separately reliable measures to assess different aspects of social anxiety.Trial registrationThis is a secondary analysis of data from two trials registered under ISRCTN75894275 and ISRCTN10627379.

Measurement equivalence of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) across individuals with social anxiety disorder from Japanese and Australian sociocultural contexts

This study sought to provide information on the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) of Mattick and Clarke (1989) with respect to factor structure, relations with psychopathology, and sex differences. A sample of 200 university students completed the SPS and SIAS and various measures of anxiety symptoms and depression. The results from the factor analyses for the sample as a whole suggest the presence of three factors corresponding to scrutiny fears, social interaction anxiety, and a general level of discomfort in social interactions. The results for men replicated this structure. For women, the three-factor solution demonstrated a blurring between the types of anxiety-provoking situations, and a general discomfort in situations involving differences in social power. In general, the discomfort factor was not correlated with measures of pathology, raising the possibility that uneasiness in these situations represents a process that is not part of social anxiety. The distinction between scrutiny fears and social interaction anxiety was also supported by the pattern of partial correlations that suggests that the presence of scrutiny fears is a stronger predictor of psychopathology than is social interaction anxiety, especially for men.

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale are companion measures for assessing symptoms of social anxiety and social phobia. The scales have good reliability and validity across several samples, however, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have yielded solutions comprising substantially different item content and factor structures. These discrepancies are likely the result of analyzing items from each scale separately or simultaneously. The current investigation sets out to assess items from those scales, both simultaneously and separately, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in an effort to resolve the factor structure. Participants consisted of a clinical sample (n 5353; 54% women) and an undergraduate sample (n 5317; 75% women) who completed the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale, along with additional fear-related measures to assess convergent and discriminant validity. A three-factor solution with a reduced set of items was found to be most stable, irrespective of whether the items from each scale are assessed together or separately. Items from the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale represented one factor, whereas items from the Social Phobia Scale represented two other factors. Initial support for scale and factor validity, along with implications and recommendations for future research, is provided.

The aim of the current study was to study the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN-J) among Japanese subjects with social anxiety disorder (SAD). The sample consisted of 86 subjects with SAD and 86 controls. Diagnosis was based on a modified version of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV. In addition to the SPIN-J, clinician-administered and self-rating scales, including the Japanese versions of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, the Social Phobia Scale, and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, were used. The SPIN-J showed adequate internal consistency (0.82-0.96) for the total and subscales. Correlations between the SPIN-J and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, the Social Phobia Scale, and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale ranged from 0.83 to 0.89 and indicated adequate concurrent validity. A cut-off point of 22 between subjects with SAD and controls showed a sensitivity of 96.5% and specificity of 87.2%, indicating robust discriminant validity. The SPIN-J showed adequate reliability and validity for use as a screening tool for social anxiety disorder in Japanese clinical settings.

Factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale

Evaluation of the social phobia scale and social interaction anxiety scale as assessments of performance and interaction anxiety

Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The social interaction anxiety scale and the Social Phobia Scale

Background Interprofessional education (IPE) has been promoted as a breakthrough in healthcare because of the impact when professionals work as a team. However, despite its inception dating back to the 1960s, its science has taken a long time to advance. There is a need to theorize IPE to cultivate creative insights for a nuanced understanding of IPE. This study aims to propose a research agenda on social interaction by understanding the measurement scales used and guiding researchers to contribute to the discussion of social processes in IPE. Method This quantitative research was undertaken in a cross-institutional IPE involving 925 healthcare students (Medicine, Nursing, Social Work, Chinese Medicine, Pharmacy, Speech Language Pathology, Clinical Psychology, Food and Nutritional Science and Physiotherapy) from two institutions in Hong Kong. Participants completed the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS-6) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS-6). We applied a construct validation approach: within-network and between-network validation. We performed confirmatory factors analysis, t-test, analysis of variance and regression analysis. Results CFA results indicated that current data fit the a priori model providing support to within-network validity [RMSEA=.08, NFI=.959, CFI=.965, IFI=.965, TLI=.955]. The criteria for acceptable fit were met. The scales were invariant between genders, across year levels and disciplines. Results indicated that social interaction anxiety and social phobia negatively predicted behavioural engagement (F = 25.093, p<.001, R 2=.065) and positively predicted behavioural disaffection (F = 22.169, p<.001, R 2=.057) to IPE, suggesting between-network validity. Conclusions Our data provided support for the validity of the scales when used among healthcare students in Hong Kong. SIAS-6 and SPS-6 have sound psychometric properties based on students’ data in Hong Kong. We identified quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research designs to guide researchers in getting involved in the discussion of students’ social interactions in IPE. Key Messages The Social Anxiety Scale (SIAS-6) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS-6) scales have sound psychometric properties based on the large-scale healthcare students’ data in IPE in Hong Kong. Social interaction anxiety and social phobia negatively predicted students’ behavioural engagement with IPE and positively predicted behavioural disaffection. The scales are invariant in terms of gender, year level and discipline. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are proposed to aid researchers to contribute in healthcare education literature using the SIAS-6 and SPS-6.

P01-35 - Relationship of social anxiety severity with drinking motives among male alcohol dependent inpatients

Validity and Reliability of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) Background: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) are commonly used self-report instruments for social anxiety. Disorder-specific measures for social phobia are urgently needed considering the high prevalence of this anxiety disorder. The present study reports validity and reliability properties of the German version of both scales. Methods: 76 participants diagnosed with social phobia, 199 participants with panic disorder with/without agoraphobia or agoraphobia without a history of panic disorder, and 82 participants with other clinical disorders were included in the analyses. The patients were seeking treatment in the Christoph-Dornier Foundation for Clinical Psychology. The assessment procedure at the Foundation comprised a structured clinical interview and a battery of questionnaires. SPS und SIAS were part of this battery. Results: The results indicate that the scales have good internal consistency, adequate convergent, but inadequate discriminant validity with similar/different measures of anxiety and mood disturbances and they sensitively measure treatment change. Both scales discriminated between the clinical samples. However, the classification performance decreased significantly when all three samples were considered. A factor analysis did not support the originally theoretically derived uniformity of the scales. Conclusions: These findings confirm the utility of the questionnaires only in part. It is recommended to complete the assessment of social anxiety with other questionnaires like the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI).