Jones (1991) introduced the distinction between the intensity of anxiety, or how much anxiety is experienced, and its direction, that is, whether performers interpret the anxiety as facilitative or debilitative to their performance. They also demonstrated that the directional interpretation applies to trait, as well as state, anxiety (Jones & Swain, 1995). Since its inclusion in the Martens et al. (1990) CSAI-2 in the early 1990’s, the directional dimension of anxiety has been widely accepted as an important concept in anxiety measurement, and has been used in the study of the competitive orientation of athletes (Jones & Swain, 1992), skill level (Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995), performance and performance variance (Cunningham & Ashley, 2002; Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993; Swain & Jones, 1996), the nature of the sport and competitive experience (Mellalieu, Hanton, & O’Brien, 2004), goal-attainment
expectancy (Jones & Hanton, 1996), temporal patterning (Hanton, Thomas, & Maynard, 2004), and hardiness (Hanton, Evans, & Neil, 2003). These studies have continued to provide support for the directional distinction. Research has also established that directional anxiety may have a stronger association with performance (Jerome & Williams, 2000; Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993; Swain & Jones, 1996), and skill level (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton & Jones, 1997; Hanton, O’Brien, & Mellalieu, 2003; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1992, 1995) than anxiety intensity.
The concept of directional anxiety has important implications for research exploring the relationship between anxiety and performance in sport, and consequently, for the effective management of anxiety. Despite this, there has been little investigation of the psychometric properties of the directional scales, other than the early work of Jones, Swain, and Hardy (1993). Further, information is lacking concerning inter-scale relationships between state and trait measures, and confirmation of the relationships between the trait version of the CSAI-2 and other measures of trait anxiety. Such research is a necessary pre-requisite to the development of anxiety-based interventions.
My aim in this study was to further explore the psychometric properties of current anxiety measures, to examine the relationships between trait and state measures of anxiety in sport, and to test propositions regarding the associations between intensity and direction dimensions of anxiety and the variables of skill level, and self-rated performance. I explored these variables with the ultimate goal of assessing the potential
efficacy of developing an anxiety intervention that targets trait anxiety direction as an efficient and effective means of managing state anxiety directional responses in competitive sport.
Predicted Internal Consistency of Anxiety Questionnaires
Martens et al. (1990) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the cognitive, α = 0.81, and somatic intensity, α = 0.82, subscales of the CSAI-2. More recently, similar statistics have been reported by Davis and Cox (2002), who observed alphas of 0.84 for cognitive intensity, and 0.81 for somatic intensity. Davis and Cox went further to determine the internal consistency of the directional subscales of the CSAI-2-D, reporting a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of, α = 0.77, for the cognitive direction scale, and α = 0.87, for the somatic direction scale. Given these findings, I predicted that adequate levels of internal consistency would be observed for the subscales of the CSAI-2-D in the current study.
Cunningham and Ashley (2002) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales of the CTAI-2-D. The internal consistency of cognitive anxiety intensity was found to be sufficient, α = 0.81, as was somatic anxiety intensity, α = 0.85, cognitive direction, α = 0.78, and somatic direction, α = 0.81. Given these reported observations, I predicted that a high level of internal consistency would be observed for the cognitive and somatic intensity and direction subscales of the CTAI-2-D in the current study.
When developing the SAS, Smith et al. (1990) reported strong Cronbach’s alpha levels for each of the three factors that emerged from their model. Cronbach’s alpha for the 7-item worry subscale was 0.86, the 5-item concentration disruption factor attained an alpha of 0.93, and the 9-item somatic anxiety scale had an alpha coefficient of 0.92. Given these findings, I predicted that the subscales of the SAS would display high levels of internal consistency in the present study.
Predicted Between-Scale Correlations within Anxiety Questionnaires Researchers have reported moderate associations between the subscales of the CSAI-2. For example, Edwards and Hardy (1996) observed a correlation of 0.47 between cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity, and Davis and Cox (2002) observed a correlation coefficient of 0.35 between the same subscales. Given such observations, a moderate positive linear relationship was predicted between the cognitive and somatic intensity subscales of the CSAI-2. Edwards and Hardy (1996) reported the strength and direction of inter-scale correlations for the directional subscales of the CSAI-2-D. They observed a correlation of 0.20 between the cognitive and somatic anxiety direction
subscales, a correlation coefficient of -0.20 between cognitive intensity and cognitive direction subscales, and a correlation coefficient of -0.48 between somatic intensity and somatic direction subscales. Given these observations, I predicted only small positive linear relationships between the two directional scales, and small to moderate negative linear relationships between the intensity and direction subscales of the CSAI-2-D.
Associations between subscales of the CTAI-2-D have not been reported in the literature. Despite the differences in general applications between the state and trait measures, as noted in the instructions to participants (“right now” versus “in general”), the CSAI-2-D items have exactly the same wording as the items in the trait measure. As a result, it was predicted that the relationships between the subscales of the CTAI-2-D would closely approximate those observed by Edwards and Hardy (1996) for the CSAI- 2-D. In other words, I predicted a moderate positive linear relationship between the cognitive and somatic intensity subscales, a small positive linear relationship between the cognitive and somatic directional subscales, and small to moderate negative linear relationships between the intensity and directional subscales on each of the cognitive and somatic dimensions.
Smith et al. (1990) reported moderate to strong correlations between the subscales of the SAS. They observed a correlation coefficient of, r = 0.63, between the worry and concentration disruption subscales, a correlation of, r = 0.50, between the somatic and concentration disruption subscales, and a correlation of, r = 0.62, between the somatic and worry subscales. Notably Dunn, Causgrove-Dunn, Wilson, and Syrotuik (2000) expressed some concerns about the factor structure of the SAS, and suggested further research. As a result of these reported inter-scale associations, I predicted moderate to strong positive linear correlations between the subscales of the SAS in the current study.
Predicted Relationships Between Subscales of Trait Anxiety Questionnaires Both the SAS and the CTAI-2 measure cognitive and somatic elements of multidimensional anxiety. Unlike the CTAI-2, the SAS differentiates between two classes of cognitive anxiety, worry and concentration disruption (Smith et al., 1990). Notably, six of the seven items in the SAS worry subscale are exactly the same as those items found in the CTAI-2 cognitive subscale. Items that differ between the two
measures on this scale include item 1 of the CTAI-2 “I am concerned about this competition”, item 7 of the CTAI-2 “I am concerned about losing”, and item 17 of the CTAI-2, “I’m concerned because I won’t be able to concentrate”. The SAS includes one
item on the worry subscale not found in the cognitive anxiety subscale of the CTAI-2, that being item 16, which states “I’m worried about reaching my goal.” (See
Appendices F & G). Given the overlap between the SAS worry scale and the CTAI-2 cognitive anxiety scale, a strong positive linear relationship was predicted between these two subscales.
Smith et al. (1990) previously highlighted that the concentration disruption subscale of the SAS is one of two measures of cognitive anxiety that emerged in exploratory factor analysis. On close inspection, this subscale of the SAS appears to differ quite substantially from the CTAI-2. Only one of the 18 items on the CTAI-2 is also found in the SAS, that being item 17, which states “I get concerned because I won’t be able to concentrate.” Further, as previously mentioned, correlations of, r = 0.63, have been observed between the worry and concentration disruption subscales of the SAS. Given these observations, I predicted that there would be a small to moderate
association between the concentration disruption subscale of the SAS and the cognitive subscale of the CTAI-2.
Six of the nine items found in the somatic subscale of the SAS are also used in the CTAI-2 somatic subscale. Items that differ between the measures on this scale include item 4 of the CTAI-2, “I feel jittery”, item 10 of the CTAI-2, “My body feels relaxed”, and item 16 of the CTAI-2, “My hands are clammy”. The SAS includes three items not found in the CTAI-2, including item 15, which states, “I sometimes find myself trembling before or during a competitive event”, item 19, which states, “My stomach gets upset before or during a competitive event”, and item 21, which states, “My heart pounds before competition” (See Appendices F & G). Given the general observed overlap between the somatic scale of the SAS and the somatic scale of the CTAI-2, I predicted a moderate to strong relationship between these scales in the current study.
Predicted Relationships Between Trait and State Anxiety Measures
Compared with individuals low in trait anxiety, trait-state anxiety theory predicts that individuals high in trait anxiety are likely to respond to situations of perceived threat with more intense state anxiety responses (Martens, 1977; Smith, Smoll, & Wiechman, 1998). This prediction has been consistently supported by a number of researchers (Crocker, Alderman, & Smith, 1988; Gould, Horn, & Spreeman, 1983a, 1983b; Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984; Halvari & Gjesme, 1995; Hanton, Mellalieu, & Hall, 2002; Hassmén, Koivula, & Hansson, 1998; Maynard & Howe,
1987; Passer, 1983; Powell & Verner, 1982; Ryska, 1993; Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982; Wandzilak, Potter, & Lorentzen, 1982). As an example, Ryska (1993) assessed relationships between the SCAT, a unidimensional measure of sport competition anxiety, and each of the subscales of the CSAI-2. Ryska observed a correlation coefficient of, r = 0.37, between generalised trait anxiety and cognitive state anxiety intensity, whilst a correlation of, r = 0.47, was observed between generalised trait anxiety and somatic state anxiety intensity.
More recently, Hanton et al. (2002) computed correlations between the SAS and the CSAI-2. They observed a correlation of, r = 0.74, between state and trait anxiety intensity for trait worry and cognitive state anxiety intensity, and, r = 0.78, between somatic trait anxiety and somatic state anxiety intensity. Hanton et al. went on to
calculate correlations between trait anxiety intensity and state anxiety directional scores. They found that low trait anxiety athletes (as indicated by a low score on the
concentration disruption scale of the SAS) presented with more facilitating
interpretations of cognitive and somatic state anxiety symptoms than their high trait anxiety counterparts. They did not to observe significant differences as a function of state anxiety interpretation for trait worry and trait somatic anxiety groups. Hanton et al. reported correlations between state and trait anxiety intensity of r = 0.74 (p < 0.05) for trait worry and cognitive state anxiety intensity and, r = 0.78 (p < 0.05) between somatic trait anxiety and somatic state anxiety intensity. The relationship between concentration and cognitive anxiety intensity revealed only a moderate correlation of, r = 0.28 (p < 0.05).
I found no data that illustrates the association between directional scales of trait and state measures. Given the similarities between the CTAI-2-D and the CSAI-2-D, I predicted moderate to strong positive relationships between these measures across all sub-scales. As a result of considerable item overlap, I predicted moderate to strong correlation coefficients between the SAS somatic and worry subscales, and their CSAI- 2-D counterparts, those being the cognitive and somatic intensity subscales. I predicted a small to moderate strength relationship between the concentration disruption subscale of the SAS and the cognitive intensity subscale of the CSAI-2-D. I predicted moderate to strong positive linear associations between all directional scales across state and trait measures. Finally, given the observed relationships between the anxiety intensity and direction subscales of the CTAI-2-D, and the similarity between the intensity subscales of the SAS and CTAI-2-D, I predicted small to moderate negative linear relationships
between trait and state intensity and direction subscales. Notably, I was unable to find research that has previously explored these relationships.
Predicted Relationships Between Dimensions of Anxiety and Performance Outcome Measures
In their meta-analysis, Woodman and Hardy (2003) observed a weak negative mean effect size for the relationship between cognitive state anxiety intensity (assessed using the CSAI-2) and performance. At around the same time, Craft et al. (2003) also completed a meta-analysis and reported a very weak positive relationship between these variables. Combined these findings do not lend support for a strong relationship
between cognitive state anxiety intensity and performance. Craft et al. also investigated the relationship between state somatic anxiety intensity and performance, and reported that it was close to zero. This latter finding may be indicative of the proposed inverted- U relationship between somatic anxiety and performance. Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis used linear statistics to test the relationship between somatic intensity and performance. As a result, Craft et al. could only examine the linear relationship between these variables, which would most likely give close to zero
Pearson’s correlation coefficient values, if the relationship is a non-linear one. Given the findings of these two meta-analyses, linear associations approaching zero were
predicted between state anxiety intensity and performance in the present study. Jones, Swain, and Hardy (1993) investigated the relative efficacy of various dimensions of state anxiety as predictors of performance in a sample of gymnasts. They divided their sample of 48 gymnasts into poor and good performance groups using the median split technique, and found that cognitive state anxiety direction was the only independent variable that effectively predicted performance, with their good
performance group reporting cognitive anxiety as more facilitating and less debilitating than the poor performance group reported.
Jerome and Williams (2000) explored the relationships between intensity and direction of state anxiety and performance with a sample of semi-professional and recreational tenpin bowlers. Their findings indicated that only somatic anxiety direction was significantly correlated with performance, and that only 3% of the performance variance was accounted for by this dimension of the anxiety response. More recently, Cunningham and Ashley (2002) investigated the relationship between trait anxiety intensity and direction, and performance with a sample of 94 entry-level college golfers. They did not observe any difference in subsequent golf performance for any of the
anxiety dimensions. Research exploring the association between performance and anxiety direction remains sparse and is unclear in its findings. Although early research suggested that there is a relationship between skill level and anxiety direction, further research exploring the relationship between these variables is warranted. Given that there has only been limited research conducted in this area, I intend to further explore the associations between anxiety direction and performance at both the state and trait levels.
When considering the utility of using directional interpretations of anxiety as a means of predicting the skill level of competitors, research findings have been
somewhat more favourable. For example, in their research on swimmers, Jones et al. (1994) noted that both cognitive and somatic state anxiety direction differentiated skilled from non-skilled competitors, whereas measures of intensity offered no such benefits. Jones and Swain (1995) replicated these findings in the context of trait anxiety responses amongst cricketers.
Jones and Hanton (2001) explored pre-competition feeling states and anxiety directional interpretation in a sample of 190 swimmers. Notably, they did not observe any clear differences between skill and anxiety direction in their study, with more than half of their sample interpreting both cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity as facilitative to performance, and only 27% reporting both anxiety dimensions as being debilitative. They explained such uncharacteristic observations by noting that the majority of their participants were elite swimmers.
Hanton and Connaghton (2002) conducted interviews to determine how the presence of anxiety symptoms and accompanying directional interpretations affected the performance in six elite and six sub-elite swimmers. They found that perceived control mediated the directional interpretation of anxiety symptoms. In other words, symptoms perceived to be under control were interpreted to have facilitative consequences for performance; however, symptoms that were not perceived to be under control were viewed as debilitative to performance outcomes.
Examining a sample of 233 elite and non-elite competitors from a range of open skilled sports, Hanton et al. (2003) explored debilitative and facilitative trait anxiety levels as a function of skill level. Although only low to moderate effect sizes were observed, they did observe main effects between direction variables as a function of skill level. Hanton et al. highlighted the difficulty in operationalising and standardising skill level across a range of sports. Notably, they also observed significant differences
on intensity measures, with elite competitors reporting lower intensities of anxiety. Hanton et al. suggested that the primary variable associated with these observations may be perceived control over outcome goals. Similar observations were made by Hanton and Conaughton (2002). Although early research suggested that there is a relationship between skill level and anxiety direction, further research exploring the relationship between these variables is warranted. Given these findings, I predicted that both cognitive and somatic anxiety direction would be associated with skill level at both the state and trait levels, but that there would be only small and non-significant associations between anxiety intensity measures and skill, at either the state or trait level.
Overall, researchers have accumulated a considerable amount of information pertaining to the psychometric properties of the CSAI-2 and SAS. Less is known about the trait version of the CSAI-2 (the CTAI-2), and the inter-relationships between state and trait measures of the anxiety construct. Despite the general acceptance of the use of directional versions of the CSAI in the research setting, little has been reported in relation to the psychometric properties of these additional scales. Appropriate
measurement tools are a necessary component of any research aiming to investigate the utility of interventions designed to change certain aspects of the anxiety response. In addition, proposed interventions should be supported by current observations of the links between anxiety dimensions and performance measures. Given preliminary findings indicating that measures of anxiety direction more accurately predict skill level and performance than intensity alone measures, further research needs to be conducted to explore these relationships. If additional support is forthcoming, future research should investigate what drives directional anxiety, and ultimately how to change it in a way that will help competitors to interpret their symptoms more facilitatively. In this study, I examined state-trait and intensity-direction dimensions of anxiety, and their