Anxiety Measurement: MASC and BAI

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Measurement Constructs
Interpretation
Analysis of the Effectiveness
Conclusion
References

Abstract

Many people endure anxiety and stress in everyday life. However, in severe cases, it is necessary to measure such a condition as overwhelming anxiety can cause anxiety disorders. Two of the most effective assessment tools are the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). MASC is made up of four scales that measure physical and emotional symptoms.

The BAI consists of cognitive and behavioral elements as well, but this tool is mostly used to assess physical symptoms. However, the effectiveness of these methods was proved by various researchers. These methods were applied to different populations and demonstrated positive results. However, the literature review revealed that the BAI is a more universal method and it can be successfully applied in different settings. The BAI is a more objective measurement as it focuses on physiological processes rather than emotional ones. Therefore, the BAI has the clearest application of measurement concepts.

Introduction

Many people endure anxiety and stress in everyday life. It is a normal condition for individuals who work long hours, suffer sleep deprivation, or live an unbalanced life. However, in severe cases, overwhelming anxiety can cause anxiety disorders. Therefore, it is necessary to measure such a condition. However, as anxiety is closely interrelated with emotions, it might be very difficult to measure. Various methods allow measuring the level of anxiety, but not all of them are effective. The main goal of this paper is to analyze and compare two assessment tools: the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI).

Measurement Constructs

The first assessment tool is the MASC. This tool allows for measuring self-reported anxiety. It has a hierarchical structure that helps to differentiate alternative anxiety manifestations from scale development and good item selection (Houghton, Hunter, Trewin, & Carroll, 2014). However, the MASC might not apply to certain minority communities due to a biased normative sample.

The second assessment tool is the BAI designed by Aaron Beck and his colleagues. This tool describes 21 items that represent symptoms of anxiety and allows ranking them by their severity on a four-point scale (“Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory,” n.d). The BAI is a very convenient tool as it ensures simple scoring. The BAI offers short and easy instructions, answer sheets, and scoring software.

The MASC has adequate reliability and validity, which is why the tool is widely used by psychologists and counselors. The MASC is made up of four scales: physical symptoms, harm avoidance, social anxiety, and panic (Houghton et al., 2014). The first scale, physical symptoms, encompasses two other subscales: tense and somatic. The second scale, harm avoidance, is divided into perfectionism and anxious coping subscales. The third scale, social anxiety, consists of humiliation and performance fears subscales. However, the last scale, panic, do not have any subscales. Except for the above-mentioned scales, the MASC has two other important elements, which are a validity scale and an Anxiety Disorders Index. These methods allow measuring diagnostic criteria for anxiety established by the DSM-IV classification system.

The BAI offers four methods to administer the test: the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation. The questions presented in these modes focus on anxiety symptoms that might include such physiological processes as sweating or tingling. Twenty-one questions help to measure such symptoms on a scale from zero to three.

The described methods on which these two tools are based ensure the reliability and validity of the measuring process. These scales allow identifying the level of anxiety by the most common symptoms. Although the BAI consists of cognitive and behavioral elements as well, it is mostly focused on physical symptoms. Meanwhile, the MASC measures a wider range of signs of anxiety. It evaluates emotional symptoms such as fears and self-esteem. Therefore, the MASC addresses the issue more comprehensively because it uses similar contracts as the BAI and also has components that are deemphasized in this tool.

Interpretation

The interpretation of results is the most important part of these tests. Therefore, it is necessary to pay particular attention to this aspect. The BAI offers four modes each of which should be interpreted individually. The Beck Depression Inventory allows evaluating the level of depression (“Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory,” n.d.). This method describes six levels of depression. For example, the score from zero to 10 indicates a normal condition, and the score over forty indicates extreme depression. The Beck Anxiety Inventory indicates the level of anxiety (“Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory,” n.d.).

This method describes four levels. The Beck Scale for Suicide helps to evaluate the risk for suicide (“Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory,” n.d.). The score over twenty-four is a cutoff that indicates that a person is at a significant risk to commit suicide. The Beck Hopelessness Scale evaluates the same characteristic (“Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory,” n.d.). The score above eight indicates a high risk of suicide.

The interpretation of the results of the MASC is similar to the BAI. It also determines the overall level of anxiety by scoring. The score over sixty-five indicates clinically significant symptoms that imply psychological and behavioral problems. However, the results are interpreted by different categories. These are separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder (Wei et al., 2014). The score from twenty to thirty-six indicates social phobia. The score below ten indicates a generalized anxiety disorder. Therefore, the scores of one test correlate with the scores of another one. The higher score, the higher the level of anxiety or other associated conditions is.

Analysis of the Effectiveness

The effectiveness of these tools is discussed by many researchers. For example, the study by Sterling et al. (2015) presents the results of the application of MASC to teenagers with autism. The authors state that increased scores on the panic scale and physical symptoms scale effectively predicted separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorders in children on the autism spectrum. Another study by Houghton et al. (2014) evaluates the effectiveness of the MASC. The authors concluded that this tool is useful for measuring anxiety in teenagers. However, they also state that this tool requires revising as “the correlation between harm avoidance and separation anxiety” variables indicates “a multicollinearity problem” (Houghton et al., 2014, p. 402).

Although the authors admitted that the MASC is effective, it can be complemented by other methods. The next study examines “the psychometric properties, including discriminant validity and clinical utility, of the youth self-report and parent-report forms of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) among youth with anxiety disorders” (Wei et al., 2014, p. 566). The authors concluded that MASC offers practical methods to identify anxiety disorders in adolescents.

There are also different studies on the effectiveness of the BAI. For example, the research conducted by Kagee, Coetzee, Saal, and Nel (2015) focused on the application of this tool to adults diagnosed with HIV. The authors concluded that a single score could effectively determine the overall level of anxiety in such a population. Another study by Bardhoshi, Duncan, and Erford (2016) offer a meta-analysis of multiple works in which the BAI was used.

Results demonstrated that the reliability and validity of the test depended on the sample size and cut-off score. The next work by Ng, Yeo, Shwe, Gan, and Chan (2016) analyzed the effectiveness of the application of the English and Chinese versions of the BAI. The authors focused on patients with breast cancer. The results revealed that both versions are valid and reliable for future use.

The effectiveness of these assessment tools was proved by various researchers. These methods were applied to different populations and demonstrated positive results. Although certain imperfections are present in both tools, their validity and reliability are supported by scientific evidence. However, the literature review revealed that the BAI is a more universal method. This tool can be successfully applied in different settings. The BAI is a more objective measurement as it focuses on physiological processes rather than emotional ones. However, under certain circumstances, this method is not as comprehensive as the MASC. Nonetheless, due to the literature review, the BAI has the clearest application of measurement concepts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, assessment tools to measure anxiety and associated conditions are highly important for practicing psychologists and other specialists in this field. However, the effectiveness of such methods might be questionable. The nature of anxiety is deeply rooted in the inner emotional state of a person. Therefore, the assessment tools should evaluate not only physiological symptoms but also cognitive impairments.

The above-discussed methods, the MASC and BAI, can effectively measure the level of anxiety in patients with different backgrounds and conditions. However, the literature review revealed that the latter could be applied in more diverse situations. The BAI emphasizes the importance of physical factors, which can be measured more objectively. Therefore, this method is perceived to be more applicable.

References

Bardhoshi, G., Duncan, K., & Erford, B. T. (2016). Psychometric meta‐analysis of the English version of the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(3), 356-373.

Houghton, S., Hunter, S.C., Trewin, T., & Carroll, A. (2014). The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): A further validation with Australian adolescents with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 18(5), 402-411.

Interpreting the Beck Depression Inventory. (n.d.). Web.

Kagee, A., Coetzee, B., Saal, W., & Nel, A. (2015). Using the Beck Anxiety Inventory among South Africans living with HIV: Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(3), 204-213.

Ng, T., Yeo, H. L., Shwe, M., Gan, Y. X., & Chan, A. (2016). Psychometric properties and measurement equivalence of the English and Chinese versions of the Beck Anxiety Inventory in patients with breast cancer. Value in Health, 19(7), A854.

Sterling, L., Renno, P., Storch, E. A., Ehrenreich-May, J., Lewin, A. B., Arnold, E.,… Wood, J. (2015). Validity of the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale for youth with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 19(1), 113-117.

Wei, C., Hoff, A., Villabo, M. A., Peterman, J., Kendall, P. C., Piacentini, J.,… Sherrill, J. (2014). Assessing anxiety in youth with the multidimensional anxiety scale for children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 566-578.

Click Here To Order Now!