ArticleDementia & neuropsychologia2025
Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the reading anxiety scale (RAS) for children.
Article in Dementia & neuropsychologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between reading anxiety and reading achievement: A meta-analysis and systematic review.Psychological bulletin · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading anxiety (RA) significantly influences children's emotional and cognitive development, affecting their reading performance. Effective identification of RA requires reliable and valid assessment tools tailored for specific populations, such as Brazilian children. Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties, including validity and reliability, of the Brazilian version of the Reading Anxiety Scale (RAS) in elementary school children. Methods: A sample of 225 Brazilian elementary students was assessed using the RAS-20. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate content-based validity. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha, and Pearson's correlations assessed associations with external constructs such as reading performance and executive functions. Group comparisons were conducted using ANCOVA between children with and without reading difficulties. Results: After CFA adjustments, a single-factor model with 18 items showed robust internal consistency. The correlation between RAS-20 scores and variables related to reading and cognitive functions supported moderate validity. Children with reading difficulties scored significantly higher on the RA scale than those without. Conclusion: The adapted 18-item RAS version is a reliable and valid tool for assessing reading anxiety in Brazilian children, contributing to more effective identification and intervention in educational contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.