The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents

Alana Jones; Esther Gandhi; Maddison O'Gradey-Lee; Deanna Francis; Serje Robidoux; Genevieve McArthur; Jennifer L. Hudson

doi:10.1177/10731911251327480

The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents

Alana Jones, Esther Gandhi, Maddison O'Gradey-Lee, Deanna Francis, Serje Robidoux, Genevieve McArthur, Jennifer L. Hudson

School of Psychological Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	483–496
Number of pages	14
Journal	Assessment
Volume	33
Issue number	3
Early online date	15 Apr 2025
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251327480
Publication status	Published - Apr 2026

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2025. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

anxiety
poor reading
reading anxiety
scale development
scale validation

Access to Document

10.1177/10731911251327480Licence: CC BY-NC

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 269 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{4005bb99084e4589ab1d2ab83a9a56c9,

title = "The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents",

abstract = "There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.",

keywords = "anxiety, poor reading, reading anxiety, scale development, scale validation",

author = "Alana Jones and Esther Gandhi and Maddison O'Gradey-Lee and Deanna Francis and Serje Robidoux and Genevieve McArthur and Hudson, \{Jennifer L.\}",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2025. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2026",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1177/10731911251327480",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

pages = "483–496",

journal = "Assessment",

issn = "1073-1911",

publisher = "SAGE Publications",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents

AU - Jones, Alana

AU - Gandhi, Esther

AU - O'Gradey-Lee, Maddison

AU - Francis, Deanna

AU - Robidoux, Serje

AU - McArthur, Genevieve

AU - Hudson, Jennifer L.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2025. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2026/4

Y1 - 2026/4

N2 - There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.

AB - There is a dearth of publicly available standardized and normed reading anxiety tests (RATs) with known psychometric properties. In this study, we collected self-report data (n = 416), parent-report data (n = 455), or both (n = 184), for primary (n = 498) and secondary students (n = 473) for four RATs plus the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses revealed that 21 items for each RAT loaded on three factors (generalized, social, and physiological reading anxiety), which had good internal consistency (.85 to .98) and interrater reliability (.82 to .90). Further, RAT scores correlated more closely with RCADS-25 anxiety scores (r = .54; convergent validity) than RCADS-25 depression scores, SDQ prosocial behavior, conduct problems, and peer problems scores (rs = -.03 to -.41; discriminant validity). We therefore calculated norms for each RAT, which are freely available on motif.org.au.

KW - anxiety

KW - poor reading

KW - reading anxiety

KW - scale development

KW - scale validation

UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=mq-pure-production&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:001468525600001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP200102241

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105002967434

U2 - 10.1177/10731911251327480

DO - 10.1177/10731911251327480

M3 - Article

C2 - 40231797

SN - 1073-1911

VL - 33

SP - 483

EP - 496

JO - Assessment

JF - Assessment

IS - 3

ER -

The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

ARC DP20: Understanding the link between reading impairments and emotional problems

Cite this

The validity and reliability of the Reading Anxiety Test (RAT) for children and adolescents

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

ARC DP20: Understanding the link between reading impairments and emotional problems

Cite this