The structure of the Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis

using UK psychology students.

Donncha Hanna, Mark Shevlin, Martin Dempster

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the structure of the Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale. Responses

from 650 undergraduate psychology students throughout the UK were collected through an

on-line study. Based on previous research three different models were specified and

estimated using confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices were used to determine if the model

fitted the data and a likelihood ratio difference test was used to determine the best fitting

model. The original six factor model was the best explanation of the data. All six subscales

were intercorrelated and internally consistent. It was concluded that the Statistics Anxiety

Rating Scale was found to measure the six subscales it was designed to assess in a UK

population.

Introduction

The importance of statistics and research methods in the undergraduate Psychology degree

programme been acknowledged by both the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

(2002) and the British Psychological Society (2006) within the UK. Students undertaking

these subjects learn both subject specific skills and generic, transferable skills. For example,

it has been demonstrated that the statistics element of the psychology undergraduate

programme enhances critical reasoning (Lawson, 1999; Lehman & Nisbett, 1990;

1
VanDerStoep & Shaughnessy, 1997). However, empirical evidence and commonly held

subjective opinion suggest statistics is one of the students’ most disliked subjects (Sciutto,

1995). In fact, if the majority of psychology students could choose to drop one required

course from their curriculum it would be statistics (Conners, McCown & Roskos-Ewoldsen,

1998). This is supported by literature which suggests that up to 80% of students experience

‘statistic anxiety’ (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003).

Statistics anxiety has been defined as the specific feelings of anxiety students experience

when they encounter statistics, for example, gathering, processing and interpreting data

(Cruise, Cash & Bolton, 1985; Onwuegbuzie, DaRos & Ryan, 1997). It could be argued that

students experience anxiety with regards to many different aspects of their course (which will

differ between students depending on their individual abilities and preferences) and indeed

some anxiety is unavoidable as part of the assessment processes in higher education.

However, studies have consistently demonstrated a negative relationship between statistics

anxiety and performance (Benson, 1989; Feinberg & Halperin, 1978; Lalonde & Gardner,

1993; Onwuegbuzie & Daly, 1996; Onwuegbuzie & Seaman, 1995; Pretorius & Norman,

1992; Tremblay, Gardner, & Heipel, 2000; Zeidner, 1991). It has even been postulated that

this anxiety is the best predictor of achievement in statistic courses (Fitzgerald, Jurs &

Hudson, 1996) and research methods courses (Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Furthermore, statistical

anxiety has been shown to be related to increased levels of academic procrastination

(Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This body of research has demonstrated the importance of statistical

anxiety; therefore it is imperative to have a valid assessment tool to assess this concept to

ascertain if students are experiencing statistical anxiety, if it is impacting on their

performance and to evaluate potential interventions to reduce such anxiety.

2
The Statistical Anxiety Rating Scale or STARS developed by Cruise et al. (1985) is currently

the most widely used measure for assessing statistics anxiety (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson,

2003). Cruise et al. (1985) utilized principal components analysis to identify six components

of statistics anxiety which the STARS purports to measure; these are: worth of statistics,

interpretation anxiety, test and class anxiety, computational self-concept, fear of asking for

help and fear of statistics teachers. However, some of the items within the STARS may not be

suitable for a UK population and the factor structure has not been confirmed.

Baloglu (2002) conducted the only attempt to confirm the six factor structure of the STARS

in American college students however this analysis appears to have been conducted

incorrectly; effectively demonstrating the six factors did not form a high order structure. For

completeness, this study assessed not only the six factor model but one and four factor

models also. The high internal consistency of the total 51 item scale reported by

Onwuegbuzie (1993) and Baloglu (2002), both reported α = 0.96, may suggest the STARS is

a uni-dimensional scale. Additionally, Onwuegbuzie, DaRos & Ryan, (1997) conducted focus

groups which suggested there were four main elements to statistics anxiety.

The aim of this article was to test the factor structure of the STARS questionnaire for a UK

population. In addition to the unconfirmed six-factor model, one- and four- factor models will

also be assessed.

Method

3
Participants

The STARS questionnaire was made available on-line and universities throughout the UK

that offered undergraduate psychology courses were invited to inform their students about the

study. A total of 849 participants completed the questionnaire during the 3 weeks it was

available on-line during May 2007. As 199 of the participants did not complete all 51 items

in the STARS questionnaire the sample size used for analysis in this study was reduced to

650. These students constituted approximately 12.7% of the total UK psychology

undergraduate population (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2007) and represented 31

different universities. The mean age was 22 years (SD = 5.44) and ranged from 18 to 56. The

majority of the participants were female (n = 533; 82%); this is reflective of gender split in

the total UK population where approximately 79% of the students are female (Higher

Education Statistics Agency, 2007). The students were relatively evenly distributed with

regards to the progression through their course; 31.1% were in first year, 31.7% were in

second year, 26% were in third year and 6.3% were in their fourth year. Additionally 3

students indicated they were part-time and 29 (4.5%) did not answer this question.

Measures

The data was collected using a set of demographic questions and the STARS questionnaire.

These were made available on-line ([Link] The STARS

is 51 item questionnaire with responses gathered on a 5 point Likert scale that measures six

scales. The rubric asked participants to indicate how much anxiety they would experience

(from no anxiety to strong anxiety) in each of the situations for the first 23 items and then the

participants were asked their level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) on

4
the remaining 28 items. These scales demonstrated 5-week test-retest reliabilities between .67

and .83 and concurrent validity was claimed as strong positive correlations were evident with

the Mathematics Anxiety Scale (Cruise, et al., 1985). Higher scores on an item or subscale

indicate higher levels of that attitude or anxiety except for the ‘fear of statistics teachers’

subscale where higher scores indicate lower levels of anxiety or more positive attitudes. Each

of the six subscales purports to measure a different aspect of statistical anxiety. The ‘worth of

statistics’ subscale attempts to measure the perceived usefulness of statistics. The

‘interpretation anxiety’ subscale attempts to measure anxiety when interpreting statistical

results. ‘Test and class anxiety’ is designed to assess the anxiety experienced when taking a

statistics test or attending a statistics class. The ‘computation self-concept’ subscale is related

to a person’s self-belief in their ability to cope with the calculations and mathematics related

to statistics. The ‘ask for help’ subscale attempts to assess the anxiety experienced when an

individual intends to ask for help on a statistical problem. The final subscale, ‘fear of

statistics teachers’, claims to measure students’ perceptions of their statistic teachers.

However, during piloting of the STARS with staff and postgraduate students at Queens

University Belfast to ensure the items could be easily read and understood it became apparent

that the language used in six of items was not appropriate for UK students. These six items

were revised slightly so they could be more readily understood by UK students; for example,

the word ‘automobile’ was changed to ‘car’.

Insert table 1 here

Insert table 2 here

Analysis

5
Three confirmatory factor models were specified and estimated using LISREL 8.72

(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2005a). A covariance matrix and an asymptotic weight matrix were

computed using PRELIS 2.72 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2005b) based on the 51 items of the

STARS questionnaire and the model parameters estimated using maximum likelihood. All

factors were allowed to correlate and no correlated errors were included in any of the models.

The use of an asymptotic weight matrix allows for weaker assumptions regarding the

distribution of the observed variables and results in improved fit and test statistics (Satorra,

1992; Curran, West, & Finch, 1996).

Following the guidelines suggested by Hoyle and Panter (1995) the goodness of fit for each

model was assessed using a range of fit indices including the Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-

square (S-B2), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI: Bollen, 1989), and the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI: Bentler, 1990). A non-significant chi-square, and values greater than .95 for the IFI and

CFI are considered to reflect acceptable model fit. In addition, the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA: Steiger,1990) with 90% confidence intervals (90%CI) were

reported, where a value less than .05 indicates close fit and values up to .08 indicating

reasonable errors of approximation in the population (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The

standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR: Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1981) has been shown

to be sensitive to model mis-specification and its use recommended by Hu and Bentler

(1999). Values less than .08 are considered to be indicative of acceptable model fit (Hu &

Bentler, 1998). The comparative fit of the models was assessed using the Expected Cross

Validation Index (ECVI; Browne & Cudeck, 1989), an index used for the purposes of model

comparison, with the smallest value being indicative of the best fitting model.

6
Results

Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis

The fit indices for the three models are reported in Table 2

Table 3 here

The fit indices showed that a 1-factor model was a poor model and was rejected. On the basis

of meeting the criteria associated with the RMSEA, IFIF, CFI and the SRMR both the 4-

factor and 6-factor models were judged to exhibit reasonable model fit, but all the fit indices

indicated that the 6-factor model was a better model. The ECVI for the 6-factor model was

the lowest. The 4- and 6-factor models are nested so a likelihood ratio difference tests 1 is

possible to determine statistical difference between the fit of the models. The 6-factor model

was a significantly better explanation of the data than Model 1 (ΔS-B2=1645.74, df=9,

p<.001). Although the chi-square for these models were large relative to the degrees of

freedom, and statistically significant, this should not lead to the rejection of the models as the

large sample size increases the power of the test (Tanaka, 1987). The increased power of the

chi-square test can result in models with no serious mis-specification being rejected as minor

discrepancies between the sample and implied covariance matrix are detected. On the basis of

this it is proposed that the 6-factor represents an adequate description of the data, and is

judged the best of the alternative models. The standardized factor loadings are presented in

Table 3. All loadings were statistically significant (p<0.05).

1
Satorra and Bentler (2001) have developed a scaled difference chi-square statistic to compare the S-B χ2 for
nested models and this statistic can be calculated using a program by John Crawford which be downloaded from
[Link]

7
 Table 4 here

The factor correlations and estimates of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) are reported in

Table 4.

Table 5 here

All factor correlations were statistically significant (p<.05). The estimates of reliability were

all high and ranged from =.83 (Ask for Help) to =.94 (Worth).

Discussion

This article tested a series of alternative factor structures of the STARS based on a sample of

UK undergraduate psychology students. Three alternative methods were specified and tested.

On the basis of the fit indices, a six-factor model was considered to be the best explanation of

the data. This model was based of the original structure proposed by Cruise et al. (1986)

although six of the items were revised to be more suitable for the UK population. The

standardized factor loadings were all positive and statistically significant, ranging from 0.42

to 0.94. Each of the six subscales demonstrated high levels of internal consistency ranging

from 0.83 to 0.94. These internal consistency figures compare favorably with previous

research which found a range between 0.68 to 0.94 (Cruise et al., 1985), 0.83 to 0.92

(Onwuegbuzie, 1993), 0.80 to 0.84 (Onwuegbuzie, 1998) or 0.64 to 0.96 (Baloglu, 2003).

The fact the intercorrelations indicated positive and negative directional relationships

8
reflected the way in which the subscales were scored. Higher scores on interpretation anxiety,

test and class anxiety and fear of asking for help indicated higher anxiety or more negative

attitudes. Higher scores on worth of statistics, interpretation anxiety, and fear of statistics

teachers indicated more positive attitudes or lower anxiety. It should be noted that many of

the items and subscales do not appear to measure statistical anxiety directly but related

concepts, for example, views on the worth of statistics. Therefore it is suggested that the term

‘statistical attitudes and anxiety’ is a more appropriate label for the concept currently referred

to as statistical anxiety.

The findings of the research are consistent with exploratory factor analysis conducted on the

STARS among a sample of students from the USA (the only previously conducted factor

analysis of the STARS). Therefore, it appears that there are no differences in the structure of

statistical attitudes and anxiety among students in the UK and USA. However, comparing the

mean scores on each of the STARS scales found in the present study with scores obtained

from samples in the USA (Baloglu, 2003; D’Andrea & Waters, 2002), the present sample had

notably more negative scores on the Worth of Statistics and Computation Self-Concept

scales. This suggests that the sample in the present study were less likely to recognize the

value of statistics and more likely to have low computational self-concept. It is possible that

this may be a result of geographical/cultural differences or that the present study was

restricted to psychology students. Further work with students from a broader range of

disciplines in the UK is required to investigate these differences.

In conclusion, the STARS was found to measure the six internally consistent factors it had

been designed to assess in a sample of UK undergraduate psychology students.

9
References

Baloglu, M. (2002) Psychometric properties of the Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale.

Psychological Reports, 90, 315-325.

Baloglu, M. (2003) Individual Differences in statistics anxiety among college students.

Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 855-865.

Benson, J. (1989) Structural components of statistical test anxiety in adults: an exploratory

model. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 247–261.

Bentler, P. M. (1990) Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107, 238-246.

Bollen, K. A. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

British Psychological Society (2006) Regulations and reading lists for the qualifying exam.

Leicester, UK: BPS.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariation

structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

Conners, F. A., Mccown, S. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (1998). Unique challenges in

teaching undergraduate statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 40-42.

10
Cruise, R. J., & Wilkins, E. M. (1980). STARS: Statistical anxiety rating scale. Unpublished

manuscript, Andrews University, Berrin Springs, MI.

Cruise, R. J., Cash, R. W., & Bolton, D. L. (1985). Development and validation of an

instrument to measure statistical anxiety. Paper resented at the Proceedings of the American

Statistical Association. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Curran, P. J, West, S. G, & Finch, J. F. (1996) The robustness of test statistics to

nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods,

1, 16-29.

D’Andrea, L. & Waters, C. (2002) Teaching statistics using short stories: Reducing anxiety

and changing attitudes. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching

Statistics. Available from: [Link]

Feinberg, L.B. & Halperin, S. (1978) Affective and cognitive correlates of course

performance in introductory statistics. Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 11–18.

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2007) Students and Qualifiers Data Tables.

([Link] Internet Website

Hoyle, R. H, & Panter, A. T. (1995) Writing about structural equation models. In Hoyle, R.

H. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. London: Sage.

11
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1981) LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by

the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources. 1981.

Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (2005a). LISREL 8.72. Chicago: Scientific Software.

Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993) Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS

command language. Chicago: Scientific Software.

Jöreskog, K.& Sörbom, D. (2005b). PRELIS 2.72. Chicago: Scientific Software.

Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for

psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 26(3), 207-209.

Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate

training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952-960.

Onwuegbuzie , A.J. (1998) The dimensions of statistics anxiety: a comparison of prevalence

rates among mid-southern university students. Louisiana Educational Research Journal, 23,

23–40.

12
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1993). The interaction of statistics test anxiety and examination

condition in statistics achievement of post-baccalaureate non-statistics majors. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, the University of South Carolina.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Daly, C.E. (1996) The relative contributions of examination –taking

coping strategies and study copying strategies on test anxiety: a concurrent analysis.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 287-303.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Wilson, V.A. (2003) Statistics anxiety: nature, etiology, antecedents,

effects and treatments. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 195-209.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004) Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 3-19.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Seaman, M.A. (1995) The effect of time constraints and statistics test

anxiety on test performance in a statistics course. Journal of Experimental Education, 62,

115-124.

Onwugbuzie, A. J., Da Ros, D. & Ryan, J. M. (1997). The Components of Statistics Anxiety:

A Phenomenological Study. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19 (4), 11-35.

Pretorius, T.B. & Norman, A.M. (1992) Psychometric data on the statistics anxiety scale for a

sample of South african students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 933-937.

13
Quality Assurance for Higher Education (2002). Psychology. Gloucester: QAA

Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. (2001) A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment

structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514.

Satorra, A. (1992) Asymptotic robust inferences in the analysis of mean and covariance

structures. Sociological Methodology, 22, 249-278.

Sciutto, M. J. (1995). Student-centered methods for decreasing anxiety and increasing interest

level in undergraduate statistics courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(3), 277-280.

Steiger, J. H. (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation

approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

Tanaka, J.S. (1987) "How Big Is Big Enough?": Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in

Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables. Child Development, 58, 134-146.

Tremblay, P. F., Gardner, R. C. & Heipel, G. (2000). A model of the relationships among

measures of affect, aptitude, and performance in introductory statistics. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 32(1), 40-48.

VanderStoep, S. W., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1997). Taking a course in research methods

improves reasoning about real-life events. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 122-124.

14
Zanakis, S.H & Valenzi, E.R. (1997) Student anxiety and attitudes in business statistics.

Journal of Education for Business, 73, 10–16.

Zeidner, M. (1991). Statistics and mathematics anxiety in social science students: some

interesting parallels. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 319-328

15
Table 1.

The STARS questionnaire

No. Item
1. Studying for an examination in a statistics course.
2. Interpreting the meaning of a table in a journal article.
3. Going to ask my statistics teacher for individual help with material I am having

difficulty understanding.
4. Doing the coursework for a statistics course.
5. Making an objective decision based on empirical data.
6. Reading a journal article that includes some statistical analyses.
7. Trying to decide which analysis is appropriate for my research project.
8. Doing an examination in a statistics course.
9. Reading an advertisement for a car which includes figures on miles per gallon,

depreciation, etc.
10. Walking into the room to take a statistics test.
11. Interpreting the meaning of a probability value once I have found it.
12. Arranging to have a body of data put into the computer.
13. Finding that another student in class got a different answer than I did to a statistical

problem.
14. Determining whether to reject or retain the null hypothesis.
15. Waking up in the morning on the day of a statistics test.
16. Asking one of my teachers for help in understanding a printout.
17. Trying to understand the odds in a lottery.
18. Watching a student search through a loads of computer printouts from his/her

research.
19. Asking someone in the computer lab for help in understanding a printout.
20. Trying to understand the statistical analyses described in the abstract of a journal

article.
21. Enrolling in a statistics course.
22. Going over a final examination in statistics after it has been marked.
23. Asking a fellow student for help in understanding a printout.
24. I am a subjective person, so the objectivity of statistics is inappropriate for me.
25. I have not done maths for a long time. I know I'll have problems getting through

statistics.
26. I wonder why I have to do all these things in statistics when in actual life I'll never

1
 use them.
27. Statistics is worthless to me since it's empirical and my area of specialization is

abstract.
28. Statistics takes more time than it's worth.
29. I feel statistics is a waste.
30. Statistics teachers are so abstract they seem inhuman.
31. I can't even understand secondary school maths; how can I possibly do statistics?
32. Most statistics teachers are not human.
33. I lived this long without knowing statistics, why should I learn it now?
34. Since I've never enjoyed maths I don't see how I can enjoy statistics.
35. I don't want to learn to like statistics.
36. Statistics is for people who have a natural leaning toward maths.
37. Statistics is a pain I could do without.
38. I don't have enough brains to get through statistics.
39. I could enjoy statistics if it weren't so mathematical.
40. I wish the statistics requirement would be removed from my academic program.
41. I don't understand why someone in my field needs statistics.
42. I don't see why I have to fill my head with statistics. It will have no use in my

career.
43. Statistics teachers speak a different language.
44. Statisticians are more number oriented than they are people oriented.
45. I can't tell you why, but I just don't like statistics.
46. Statistics teachers talk so fast you cannot logically follow them.
47. Statistical figures are not fit for human consumption.
48. Statistics isn't really bad. It's just too mathematical.
49. Affective skills are so important in my (future) profession that I don't want to clutter

my thinking with something as cognitive as statistics.

50. I’m never going to use statistics so why should I have to take it?
51. I'm too slow in my thinking to get through statistics.

2
Table 2.

The original and revised items in the STARS Questionnaire

No. Version Item

4. Original Doing the homework for a statistics course
Revised Doing the coursework for a statistics course

9. Original Reading an advertisement for an automobile which includes figures on gas

mileage, compliance with population regulations, etc

Revised Reading an advertisement for a car which includes figures on miles per

gallon, deprecation, etc.

10. Original Walking into the classroom to take a statistics test

Revised Walking into the room to take a statistics test

16. Original Asking one of your professors for help in understanding a printout
Revised Asking one of your lecturers for help in understanding a printout

25. Original I haven't had math for a long time. I know I'll have problems getting through

statistics
Revised I have not done maths for a long time. I know I'll have problems getting

through statistics

31. Original I can't even understand seventh- and eighth- grade math; how can I possibly

do statistics
Revised I can't even understand secondary school maths; how can I possibly do

statistics

3
Table 3.

Fit indices for the alternative models of the STARS Questionnaire.

Item Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

1-factor 4-factor 6-factor

S-B 2
13448.90 5939.86 4218.67

df (p) 1224 (.00) 1218 (.00) 1209 (.00)

RMSEA .12 .077 .062

90% CI (.12-.13) (.075-.079) (.060-.064)

ECVI 23.96 10.72 7.74

90% CI (20.47-21.62) (9.12-9.86) (6.56-7.17)

IFI .87 .95 .97
CFI .87 .95 .97
SRMR .091 .072 .068

Note: S-B2=Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square; RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI=confidence intervals;

ECVI=Expected Cross Validation Index; IFI=Incremental Fit Index; CFI= Comparative Fit Index; SRMR=Standardised Root Mean

Residual.

1
2
Table 4.

Standardised factor loadings for the 6-factor model of the STARS Questionnaire.

Test Interpr Ask Worth Teache Self-

etation for r concep

Help t
Q1 .81
Q4 .64
Q8 .81
Q10 .74
Q13 .55
Q15 .74
Q21 .64
Q22 .57
Q2 .66
Q5 .72
Q6 .72
Q7 .60
Q9 .46
Q11 .71
Q12 .55
Q14 .67
Q17 .42
Q18 .54
Q20 .75
Q3 .85
Q16 .94
Q19 .68
Q23 .48
Q24 .52
Q26 .73
Q27 .71
Q28 .76
Q29 .81
Q33 .78
Q35 .63
Q36 .51
Q37 .74
Q40 .80
Q41 .68
Q42 .81
Q45 .60
Q47 .67

1
Q49 .74
Q50 .85
Q30 .77
Q32 .66
Q43 .80
Q44 .60
Q46 .71
Q25 .58
Q31 .73
Q34 .75
Q38 .80
Q39 .67
Q48 .51
Q51 .80

Note: All factor loadings significant (p<.05).

2
Table 5.

Inter-factor correlations and descriptive statistics

Test Interpretation Ask for Help Worth Teacher Self-concept

Interpretation 0.68 1.00
Ask for Help 0.44 0.46 1.00
Worth -0.54 -0.54 -0.34 1.00
Teacher -0.50 -0.42 -0.47 0.66 1.00
Self-concept -0.67 -0.60 -0.41 0.76 0.66 1.00

Cronbach’s alpha .87 .87 .83 .94 .83 .87

Mean score 27.07 30.26 10.39 56.98 18.2 23.91
Standard deviation 6.69 8.42 3.87 14.13 4.72 6.60
Range 8-40 11-53 4-20 17-80 5-25 9-35
Potential range 8-40 11-55 4-20 16-80 5-25 7-35

1
2