Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
1
CONFIRM FACTOR ANALYSIS ON STATE ANXIETY OF THAI UNIVERSITY STUDENT ATHLETES
SUPATCHARIN PAN-UTHAI
Faculty of Sports Science, Kasetsart University, Thailand.
NARUEPON VONGJATURAPAT
Faculty of Sports Science, Burapha University, Thailand.
Abstract
This study was aimed to analyze the factors related to state anxiety of university student athletes one day or two hours
prior to competition. The subjects were 400 athletes (307 males and 93 females) who participated in the university
games in Thailand. These students were aged from 18 to 24 years (M = 20.58, SD = 1.6) with sport competitive years
of experience from 1 to 4 years (M = 1.72, SD = 1.21). A Thai version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory:
CSAI 2-R based on Cox, Martens & Russell (2003) was used for testing study purposes. The questionnaire reliability
test of this 17 items rating –scale type reported its value of .78 with Thai athletes. This questionnaire was administered
one day and two hours prior to the subjects’ sport competition. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the model
adequately ( 2 = 297.76, df = 116, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.89, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.063) and good ( 2
= 158.45, df = 116, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.030) fit with the empirical data.
Alpha coefficient values were between .71 and .80 (one day), and .81 and .86 (two hours) respectively. These analysis
indicated that the Thai version CSAI-2R questionnaire is a better fit and more powerful indicator when an atheletes’
anxiety is tested two hours prior to their competition rather than one day.
Key words : Confirmatory factor analysis, State anxiety, and Thai university student athletes
INTRODUCTION
Anxiety is the most frequently researched constructs in the field of sport psychology. Moderate level of
arousal were generally associated with better performance, whereas arousal levels that were too high of too low led to
poorer performance (Spielberger, 1972) Over the past two decades, several other theoretical models and explanations
focusing on this relationship have been proposed. These include multidimensional anxiety theory (Martens, Burton,
Rivkin & Simon, 1980; Morris & Summers, 2004)
The multidimensional anxiety theory suggests that anxiety consisted of both cognitive and somatic
subcomponents. A third subcomponent discussed by Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith (1990) is the individual
difference factor of self-confidence. Following sport psychologist proposed a multidimensional anxiety theory of
anxiety and sports performance which predicted that cognitive and somatic anxiety were triggered by different
antecedents, and influenced performance via difference mechanisms. Cognitive anxiety refers to negative expectations
and cognitive concern about performance, consequence of failure, negative self-evaluation, evaluation of one’ s ability
relative to others, inability to concentrate, and disrupted attention. Somatic anxiety refers to one’s perception of the
autonomic arousal and unpleasant feeling states such as nervousness, tension and upset. Since cognitive anxiety is
principally concerned with the consequence of failure, multidimensional anxiety theory predicts that it should have a
negative linear relationship with performance, because it is hypothesized to use up some of the performer’ s
information-processing resource (Burton, 1998). Somatic anxiety, on the other hand. The hypothesized to have an
inverted – U shaped relationship with performance (Gould, Petchlikotf, & Weinberg, 1984). Self –confidence as a third
factors, independent of cognitive and somatic anxiety during their construction of valid measurement instrument
anxiety theory. Self-confidence should have a positive linear relationship with performance essentially because it is
regarded as the opposite of cognitive anxiety.
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) (Martens et al., 1990) has been the measure of choice
for most researchers of competition anxiety during the last two decades. Numerous studies have shown the
psychometric validity of this tool. The first version of the CSAI-2 was published in 1990. Cox, Martens, & Russell
(2003) published a revised version in 2003; they found that the confirmatory analysis showed a poor fit to the
advertised structure of the CSAI-2. Further factor analysis resulted in 17 item form with multiple-loading items being
removed from the original CSAI-2. The validation sample supported the revised version as being a good fit of
identified factors and items. After that, the sport psychology researchers investigating anxiety in sport should use the
CSAI-2R in preference to the original CSAI-2. (Terry and Munro, 2008; Raudsepp, Lennart, Kais, Kristjan, 2008;
Martinent, Ferrand, Guillet and, Gautheur, 2009)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
2
The subjects were 400 athletes (307 males and 93 females) who participated in the 35th University Games in
Thailand. These athletes were aged from 18 to 24 years. (M = 20.58, SD = 1.6) They were from football (n=105,
26.25%), Volleyball (n=103, 25.75%), Basketball (n=84, 21%), Takraw (n=45, 11.25%), Pétanque (n=63, 15.75%)
Measurement
Thai version of the Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory: CSAI -2TR. The Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2), developed by Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump and Smith (1990) assess three dimensions
(cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence) of state anxiety in sport. A corresponding Thai version of
CSAI-2 (CSAI-2T) was made available by Muangnapoe (1994). The CSAI-2T has shown acceptable internal
consistency (alpha coefficients for three subscales ranging from .70 to .84). In 2003, a revised version of CSAI-2 was
developed (CSAI-2R) as a simple and revised instrument for assessing dimensions of state anxiety in sport (Cox,
Martens & Rusell, 2003). In this study, the version of the original CSAI-2T (Muangnapoe, 1994) corresponding to the
revised version of CSAI-2RT was used. The CSAI-2R is a 17 items. The cognitive anxiety subscale contained 5 items
(Items 2, 5, 7, 9, 13), somatic anxiety subscale contained 7 items (Items 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16), and self-confidence
subscale contained 5 items (Items 4, 8, 11, 15, 17). Respondents rates their feelings before competition (e.g., I feel
jittery, I am concerned about losing) on a scale anchored by 1 = not at all and 4 = very much so. The factorial validity
of the CSAI-2R was previously established by Cox et al. (2003) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data from
331 athletes, which showed a good fit of the hypothesized measurement model to the data (2/df, = 1.97, NNFI = .94,
CFI = .95, RMSEA = 0.054)
The CSAI-2RT was administered to a group of Thai student athletes (N=40) age ranged from 17 to 21 years
old. The scale resulted the acceptable internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978;  > .70) by alpha value was .89 for the
somatic anxiety subscale, .87 for the cognitive anxiety subscale, and .88 the self-confidence subscale. (Juangphanich,
2005)
Procedure
The project received ethical approval from the Burapha University, Thailand and all participants provided
written informed consent. Prior to data collection, permission was obtained from the team manager and the coach to
conduct the study survey in athletes. Athletes were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study, and were
told that the results would be made available to them upon completion of the study. Athletes who agreed to participate
in the study were instructed the survey procedures for the study. All participating athletes completed the demographic
information and the CSAI-2R was administered one day and two hours prior to the subjects’ sport competition.
Statistic analyses
Descriptive analyses. Data was initially examined for multivariate normal distribution of the observed
variables. In this regard, skewness and kurtosis statistics are reported for each item. Other descriptive statistics
presented include percentage, means, and standard deviations. Finally, Cronbach’ s alpha coefficient and composite
reliability were calculated as estimates of reliability of the instrument.
Statistical modeling plan. The CSAI-2RT was examined by using confirmatory factors analysis (CFA)
through the LISREL (LInear Structural RELations) software (version 8.53; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2002). With fullinformation estimation methods, such as those provided in the programs of LISREL, the measurement and sub models
can be estimated simultaneously. In the current study, the method of maximum likelihood was used to generate model
parameter estimates. All analyses were conducted on covariance matrices. The overall CFA were preceded in three
stages. In Stage 1, each three subscale model of CSAI-2RT was tested. Stage 2, a measurement model of CSAI-2RT
was also tested, The model was specified according to the a prior CSAI-2R factorial structured presented by Cox,
Martens & Russell (2003). This measurement model contains three latent factors: (1) Somatic anxiety, (2) Cognitive
Anxiety, (3) Self-confidence. A schematic representation and the results of this model are shown in figure 1.
Model fit evaluation. It is well known that the chi-square statistic is a function of the sample sizes. Because
of this, on this study, several goodness of fit indices was considered to judge the goodness of fit of all models being
tested. These included: Chi-square statistic ( 2), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Normed Fit
Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). For RMSEA (with 90% Confidence Interval) value less than 0.08 and 0.10 0f
mediocre fit. For the indices of NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI and AGFI values closer to 1.0 represent good fit of the model
under consideration, with values greater than 0.95 representing reasonably good fit of the model to the empirical data.
(Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Kelloway, 1998)
Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
3
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics, Data distribution. The means for all items of CSAI-2RT one day and two hour before
competition varied considerably (M = 1.64 to 2.94, M = 1.81 to 2.91; SD= 0.55 to 0.81, SD = 0.62 to 0.79). Test of
univariate distribution from PRELIS, examined for skewness (-0.56 to 0.93, -0.52 to 0.57) and kurtosis (-0.13 to 0.40, 0.06 to 0.16), indicated that a number of item had significance skewness or kurtosis (p < 0.01). Values of skewness and
kurtosis were both generally low, indicating a departure from normality. (West, 1995)
Reliability Estimates
The internal consistency through alpha reliability estimate were 0.65 and 0.62 for CSAI-2RT one day and
two hour before competition whole scale, and the alpha reliability of its subscales were 0.71 to 0.80 and 0.81 to 0.86.
( > .70, Nannully, 1978). (Table 2)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis conducted using LISREL version 8.53 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2002) are
revealed that the model adequately for one day before competition ( 2 = 297.76, df = 116, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.89,
NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.063) (figure 1) and good for two hour before competition ( 2 = 158.45, df =
116, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.030) fit with the empirical data. (Table 3 and
figure 2)
Factor loadings
The factor loading of each item for one day and two hours before competition shown in Table 1, indicates
that all were reasonably. (factor loadings > 0.30) (Kim & Mueller,1978 Cited in Wirachchai, 1999)
Table 1 : Standardized factor loading for all items of CSAI-2RT model for one day and two hours before competition
Items
one day before
competition
t value
R2

Cognitive anxiety
2
I am concerned that I may not do as well in this
competition as I could
5
I am concerned about losing
8
I am concerned about choking under pressure
11
I am concerned about performing poorly
14
I am concerned that others will be disappointed with
my performance
Somatic anxiety
1
I feel jittery
4
My body feels tense
6
I feel tense in my stomach
9
My heart is racing
12
I feel my stomach sinking
15
My hands are clammy
17
My body feels tight
Self - confidence
3
I feel self-confident
7
I am confident I can meet the challenge
10
I am confident about performing well
13
I am confident because I mentally picture myself
reaching my goal
16
I am confident of coming through under pressure
two hour before
competition
t value
R2

0.65
12.82
0.43
0.65
13.47
0.42
0.56
0.42
0.73
10.70
7.70
14.50
0.31
0.17
0.53
0.73
0.70
0.71
15.63
14.85
15.00
0.53
0.49
0.50
0.68
13.35
0.46
0.72
15.30
0.51
0.48
0.52
0.48
0.39
0.66
0.48
0.54
8.59
9.52
8.67
6.95
12.35
8.57
9.83
0.23
0.27
0.23
0.15
0.44
0.23
0.29
0.80
0.79
0.68
0.74
0.49
0.61
0.69
18.20
17.92
14.59
16.49
9.87
12.69
15.02
0.63
0.62
0.46
0.55
0.24
0.37
0.48
0.82
0.74
0.64
17.75
15.54
13.07
0.67
0.54
0.41
0.83
0.63
0.62
18.59
12.94
12.77
0.68
0.39
0.39
0.56
11.00
0.31
0.65
13.49
0.42
0.55
10.97
0.31
0.70
14.75
0.48
Table 2 : Internal consistency through alpha reliability for CSAI-2RT one day and two hour before competition
Somatic anxiety
one day before competition

.65
.71
two hour before competition

.62
.86
Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
Cognitive anxiety
.74
Self - confidence
.80
Table 3 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the CSAI-2RT measurement model
Before
competition
one day
two hour
4
.83
.81
2
df
GFI
AGFI
NNFI
NFI
CFI
RMSEA
297.76,
158.45
116
116
0.92
0.96
0.89
0.94
0.91
0.99
0.88
0.97
0.92
0.99
0.063
0.030
Figure 1 Parameter estimates of CSAI-2RT model for one day before competition
Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
5
Figure 2 Parameter estimates of CSAI-2RT model for two hours before competition
DISCUSSION
In the present study, the aim was to evaluate the Thai version of the Revised Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory (CSAI-2RT) using confirmatory factor analyses in one day and two hours prior to the competition. A Thai
version of the CSAI-2R based on Cox, Martens & Rusell (2003). The result shown that the both of one day and two
hours prior to the competition of CSAI-2RT have the total 17 items, consist of three dimensions; cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. As same as the Lundqvist & Hassmen (2005) in Swedish version, and
Tsorbatzoudis, Varkoukis, Kaissidis-Rodafinos, and Grouios (1998) in Greek version, they were found 17 items model
displayed an acceptable fit to the data. For resulted that the model of two hours before the competition has a good fit
and the model of one day before competition has an adequately fit. These the period of competition anxiety increase as
competition and self-confidence decrease. The score of anxiety and self-confidence and the standardized factor loading
for all items of CSAI-2RT model for one day and two hours before competition have a change too. According to the
previous studies which show that the athletes have an anxiety increase in order to competition by the before three
weeks, two weeks, one week, four day, one day, two hours, and ten minutes before the competition (Supatcharin Panuthai., 2004; Monica, Jago, Lea, & Parish, 2000; Raglin & Morris,1994; Wiggin, 1998) at the same time selfconfidence decrease. The relationships between anxiety and self-confidence have a negative correlation. (Raglin &
Morris,1994; Wiggin, 1998; Monica, Jago, Lea, & Parish, 2000; Cox, 2002; Kou, Huang, & Chou., 2003; Neil,
Mellalieu, Hanton, & Taylor, 2007; Neil, Mellalieu, Wilson, & Hanton, 2007; Neil, Mellalieu, Hanton, & Mitchell,
2007). The present results further support the notion that the CSAI-2RT has a better fit and more powerful indicator
when an athletes’ anxiety is tested two hours prior to their competition rather than one day.
REFERENCES
Burton, D. (1998). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive anxiety - performance relationship.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 10, 45-61.
Cox, R. H. (2002). Sport Psychology : Concept and Applications. (5th eds.). New York: McGraw – Hill.
Joint Conference: 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Exercise and Sports Science & 8th International Sports
Science Conference 15th – 17th July 2009. Malaysia.
6
Cox, R.H., Martens, M.P., & Russell, W.D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics : The revised Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 519-533.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage
Gould, D.M, Petlichkoff, L. & Weinberg, R. S. (1984). Anticedent of temporal changes in and relationship between
CSAI-2 components. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 289-304.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL version 8.3: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
Juangphanich, P. (2005). Effects of walking meditation on competitive state anxiety and response time of athletes.
Doctoral dissertation, Burapha University, Thailand.
Kelloway, E.K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Kou, C.Z. , Huang, M.Y. & Chou, C.C. (2003). Effect of Cognitive Anxiety Somatic Anxiety Self - Confidence and
Trait Anxiety in Performance in Taiwanese Weightlifter. Retrived April 05, 2004, from
http://www.aahperd.confex. com/aahperd/2003/ preliminaryprogram/ abstract-384.
Lundqvist, C. & Hassmen, P. (2005). Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2): Evaluating the Swedish version
by confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Sport Science, 23(7): 727 – 736.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Rivkin, F. & Simon, J. (1980). Reliability and validity of the competitive state anxiety
inventory (CSAI). In C.H. Nadeau, W.R. Halliwell, R.M. and G.C. Robert (eds.), Psychology of motor
behavior and sport. 1979. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D,. Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development and validation of the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & Burton (Eds.),. Competitive
anxiety in sport (pp.117-213). Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Martinent, G., Ferrand, C., Guillet, E., and Gautheur, S. (2009). Validation of the French version of the competitive
state anxiety inventory-2 Revised (CSAI-2R) including frequency and direction scale. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise Available online13 May 2009.
Monica. G., Jago,T., Lea, R. & Parish, E. (2000). Difference in level of anxiety during practice and competition.
Abstract retrived October 28, 2006, from http://www.geocities.com /CollegePark/5686/su99p16.htm. *
Morris, T. & Summers, J. (2004). Sport psychology: Theory, Applications and Issues. Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Muangnapoe, P. (1994). The validation of SCAT and CSAI-2 Thai version. In Research Conference. Melbourne,
Australia: Victoria University of Technology.
Neil, R., Mellalieu, S.D., Hanton, S., & Mitchell, I. (2007). Temporal patterning of precompetitive state anxiety
symptoms in female netballers. Supplement to Journal of sport and exercise psychology conference program
and abstract, 29, 193.
Neil, R., Mellalieu, S.D., Hanton, S., & Taylor, J. (2007). Another air ball? Or have you been schooled?: An
Investigation into the relationship between anxiety and basketball performance. Supplement to Journal of
sport and exercise psychology conference program and abstract, 29, 192.
Neil, R., Mellalieu, S.D, Wilson, K., & Hanton, S. (2007). Anxiety performance relationship in rugby union.
Supplement to Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology Conference Program and Abstract, 29, 192-193.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Raglin J.S. & Morris, M.J. (1994). Precompetition anxiety in women volleyball players : a test of ZOF theory in a
sport. Journal Sports Medicine, 28(1), 47–51.
Raudsepp, Lennart, Kais, and Kristjan. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the revised competitive state anxiety
inventory-2 among Estonian athletes,. International Journal of sport and exercise psychology, March.
Spielberger , C.D. (1972). Conceptual and Methodological Issue in Anxiety Research Anxiety Current Trends in
Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press.
Supatcharin Pan-uthai. (2004). A Study of Anxiety and Electromyography Biofeedback in Youth Male Football Athlete
on the Seventh the Fourth and the First Day before the Competition. Master of Science (Sports Science),
Department of Sports Science. Kasetsart University. Thailand.
Terry, P.C., and Munro, A., (2008). Psychometric re-evaluation of the revised version of the competitive state anxiety
inventory-2. In 43rd Australian Psychological society annual conference 2008. 23-27 September 2008,
Hobart, Tasmania.
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Varkoukis, V., Kaissidis-Rodafinos, A., and Grouios, G. (1998). A test of the reliability and factorial
validity of the Greek version of the CSAI-2. Research Quarterly for exercise and sport., 69, 416-419.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curan, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and
remedies. In R.H. Hoyle. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 5675).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Wiggin, M. S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction : Pre performance temporal patterns and expectation in athletes.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 201 – 211.
Wirachchai, N. (1999). Model LISREL: Statistics for research. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. (In Thai).