SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025
A reliability generalization meta-analysis of self-report measures of statistics anxiety.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective and Method: In this study, it was aimed to obtain a general reliability coefficient for each of the statistics anxiety scales. For this purpose, Web of Science, ERIC and Scopus databases and Google Scholar search engine were searched according to certain criteria and 84 Cronbach's alpha coefficients reported for the whole scale were reached. Reliability generalization meta-analysis method was applied to the obtained alpha coefficients within the scope of meta-analysis, which is a quantitative method. Results and Conclusion: The mean value of the alpha coefficients for which the transformation formula was applied was found to be .927 under the random effects model, and the findings were statistically significant. In addition, the mean alpha value of each statistics anxiety scale was .931 for STARS, .917 for SAS, .918 for SAS-10 and .951 for WAESTA. Analog to the ANOVA and meta-regression analyses were conducted to reveal the heterogeneity of alpha coefficients in the overall analysis. Analog to ANOVA was applied for five different categorical variables, and according to the findings, it was observed that the mean alpha value differed statistically significantly depending on the scale type variable. Moreover, it was found that the mean scale score and the standard deviation of the mean scale score were statistically significant predictors of the mean alpha value.
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.