Applied Linguistics 2013: 34/2: 232–252 ß Oxford University Press 2012

doi:10.1093/applin/ams041 Advance Access published on 12 September 2012

Skill-based L2 Anxieties Revisited: Their

Intra-relations and the Inter-relations
with General Foreign Language Anxiety

TAE-IL PAE
Department of English Language Education, Yeungnam University, South Korea
E-mail: paet@ynu.ac.kr

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

Recently, research in foreign language anxiety has extended to the examination
of more language-skill-specific anxieties. Existing research findings on the
language-skill-specific anxieties indicate a consistent negative relationship be-
tween individual skill-based anxieties (e.g. listening anxiety) and more general
foreign language classroom anxiety. Regardless of the rich documentation sur-
rounding this issue, some important questions remain unanswered. The present
study was conducted to provide empirical answers to the following two unre-
solved issues: (i) the relationship between the four skill-based anxieties, and
(ii) the relation of the skill-based anxieties to general foreign language classroom
anxiety. A series of chi-square difference tests based on a sample of 229 Korean
English as a foreign language students evidenced that all four skill-based L2
anxieties were statistically distinguishable from each other. Moreover, multiple
regression analyses demonstrated that all four made an independent contribu-
tion to general classroom anxiety. Implications for researchers and practitioners
are presented.

INTRODUCTION
This article is concerned with the issue of the relationships between individual
skill-based foreign language (FL) anxieties. So far a lot of studies have been
conducted to examine FL anxiety, and existing research findings indicate that
anxiety has detrimental influence on the processes of FL learning since FL
learning is inherently a learning activity wherein learners are forced to com-
municate with others using ‘an imperfectly mastered second language’ (Saito
et al. 1999: 202). It has been suggested that anxiety interferes with FL learning
(Horwitz et al. 1986; MacIntyre and Gardner 1989; Price 1991; Saito and
Samimy 1996), and anxious FL learners tend to show physiological as well
as psycholinguistic symptoms.
Recently, research in FL anxiety has extended to the examination of more
language-skill-specific anxieties. For example, Cheng et al. (1999) explored the
relationships between general L2 classroom anxiety and more skill-specific L2
writing anxiety for a sample of 433 Taiwanese university learners of English as a
FL (EFL). Based on both factor-analytic and correlation procedures, they
demonstrated that writing anxiety as measured by the second language version
 T.-I. PAE 233

of Daly and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Scale (Daly and Miller 1975) was a
related but independent construct clearly distinguishable from more general FL
classroom anxiety, which was operationally defined by the Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS): while FLCAS was found to be a general
measure of FL classroom anxiety with a strong focus on speaking anxiety, writ-
ing anxiety was found to be a skill-based anxiety associated with writing skills.
The two constructs, however, shared low self-confidence as a common compo-
nent. Taking the research one step further, Cheng (2002) analyzed factors af-
fecting FL writing anxiety using 165 Taiwanese EFL students. The results
showed that the self-perception of L2 writing competence was the most power-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

ful predictor of L2 writing anxiety, followed by L2 writing achievement.
FL reading anxiety has also received empirical attention from L2 researchers.
In their seminal investigation about L2 reading anxiety, Saito et al. (1999)
correlated scores of the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS)
with those of FLCAS across three different target language groups (French,
Russian, and Japanese) to explore the existence of independent FL reading
anxiety. Based on the obtained Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.64 between
FLCAS and FLRAS, indicating 40.96 per cent of the shared variance between
the two measures, Saito et al. (1999) suggested that FL reading anxiety is a
construct that is distinct from, but related to, general FL anxiety. Moreover, the
study showed that the levels of general FL anxiety, as measured by FLCAS,
were relatively stable across the three target languages, and were thus inde-
pendent of the specific target language. In contrast, the levels of FL reading
anxiety varied as a function of different target language writing systems, with
learners of Japanese showing the highest level of reading anxiety followed by
learners of French. More recently, Mills et al. (2006) evaluated the role of
anxiety in relation to self-efficacy, reading proficiency, and listening profi-
ciency in French using Bandura’s social cognitive model (e.g. Bandura 2001).
In order to systematically investigate the relationship between self-efficacy,
anxiety, gender, and French reading and listening proficiency, two separate
regression analyses were performed for each of the two outcome variables
(i.e. French reading proficiency and French listening proficiency). Results of
the study indicated that French reading self-efficacy significantly predicted
variances in French reading proficiency, whereas French reading anxiety did
not. A reverse pattern, however, was found for French listening proficiency.
While listening anxiety made a significant negative prediction on listening pro-
ficiency, listening self-efficacy was significantly related to listening proficiency
only for males. These findings suggested the absence of any significant rela-
tionship between reading anxiety and reading proficiency in French when the
effects of reading efficacy and gender were statistically controlled for, whereas
listening anxiety was significantly predictive of French listening proficiency
over and beyond the influences coming from listening self-efficacy and gender.
The existence of FL listening anxiety has been the focus of some other
studies. For instance, Kim (2000, 2005) designed a 33-item Likert-type meas-
ure of FL listening anxiety (Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale, FLLAS),
234 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

and investigated the psychometric properties of FLLAS using 312 Korean EFL
university students. To examine the construct validity of FLLAS, Kim corre-
lated FLLAS with different scales of anxiety (e.g. Trait Anxiety Inventory,
FLRAS, and FLCAS). The results of a series of correlation analyses identified
a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.53 between FLLAS and FLRAS, 0.70 be-
tween FLLAS and FLCAS, and 0.33 between FLLAS and the Trait Anxiety
Inventory. The low correlation (r = 0.33) between FLLAS and the Trait
Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger 1983) reveals that a situation-specific language
anxiety construct, such as FL listening anxiety, is quite separable from general
personality-type anxiety. The higher correlation between FLLAS and FLCAS

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

(r = 0.70) relative to the correlation between FLLAS and FLRAS (r = 0.53) sug-
gests that FLCAS measures oral aspects of FL anxiety more than written ones,
as consistent with previously reported in the literature (e.g. Horwitz et al. 1986;
Cheng et al. 1999). A similar pattern was obtained for the less commonly
taught languages, such as Arabic. Elkhafaifi (2005) examined the effects of
both general FL classroom anxiety and FL listening anxiety on students’
final course grades and listening comprehension for 453 US university students
of Arabic. The study results evidenced a strong significant Pearson correlation
coefficient (r = 0.66) between FLCAS and FL listening anxiety. A significant
correlation was also obtained for the relationships between listening anxiety
and listening comprehension grades and between general FL anxiety and final
course grades, which was in line with the findings reported in previous studies
(e.g. Horwitz et al. 1986; Aida 1994; Saito et al. 1999; Kim 2000, 2005).
FL speaking anxiety is one of the main motivators that have stimulated
extensive research on FL anxiety, as signaled by the dominance of items ad-
dressing L2 speaking anxiety on FLCAS (Cheng et al. 1999). According to
Horwitz et al. (1986), it is the communication apprehension that threatens
an individual L2 learner’s self-concept as a competent communicator since
L2 learners are often required to express their mature thoughts and ideas
with limited knowledge in the L2. The mismatch between L2 learners’
mature thoughts and their inability to express themselves clearly or under-
stand others is one of the main sources of frustration and anxiety experienced
in the process of L2 learning (MacIntyre and Gardner 1989). Previous empir-
ical studies explored the relationships between FL anxiety measures and
speaking proficiency. On one hand, Young (1986) found a significant negative
correlation between anxiety and oral proficiency as measured by the Oral
Proficiency Interview, but the correlations were reduced to an insignificant
level, once the effects of ability were statistically accounted for. On the other
hand, Phillips (1992) reported a significant negative correlation (r = 0.40)
between students’ oral exam scores and the FLCAS scores even after control-
ling for students’ written exam scores.
To summarize, it is evident that FL anxiety, whether generalized or more
skill-specific, exerts deleterious effects on the processes of L2 acquisition.
Regardless of the rich documentation on the relationships between various
measures of L2 learning outcomes and FL anxiety across both general and
 T.-I. PAE 235

more skill-specific domains, some important questions remain unanswered.

What is the relationship between the four skill-specific L2 anxieties (i.e. listen-
ing, speaking, reading, and writing)? Are these skill-specific L2 anxieties sub-
sumed under one general anxiety factor? Are they separable from each other?
If not, are they divisible into oral versus written anxieties or receptive versus
productive skill anxieties? How are these anxieties related to more general FL
anxiety? Answers to these questions will provide important theoretical and
pedagogical implications for L2 anxiety research. The present study was in-
tended to bridge these gaps in the literature of L2 anxiety.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

The present study
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships among the
four skill-based L2 anxieties, and evaluate the relation of these skill-based
anxieties to general FL anxiety in a sample of 229 Korean EFL learners.
Specifically, the following two research questions were posed.
Research Question 1: How do the four skill-based L2 anxieties (i.e. Listening
Anxiety, Reading Anxiety, Speaking Anxiety, and Writing Anxiety) relate to
each other?
Research Question 2: How are skill-based L2 anxieties related to general FL
anxiety? Does each of the skill-based anxieties make an independent contri-
bution to general FL anxiety?

METHOD
Participants
A total of 285 Korean university EFL students participated in the present study.
Participants were sampled from diverse academic areas, such as English,
Business, Political Science, Engineering, Hard Sciences, and Arts. The female
participants comprised 58 per cent, and the age range was from 18 to 39 years
(M = 22.1, SD = 3.13). More than half (53 per cent) of the participants were
first-year students. Upon close investigation of the students’ data, however,
missing values were found for 56 cases. A list-wise deletion of the missing
values resulted in the final sample of 229 students. In South Korea, English
is a compulsory school subject from grades 3 to 12. At the time of the data
collection, the university, from which the participants were recruited, required
all of its students to take General English Courses for at least two semesters or
more to be eligible for graduation. This suggests that all the study participants
had been learning English for at least 11 years.

Procedure
Initially, the author contacted individual instructors in charge of the General
English Courses (e.g. English Reading, English Conversation, and English
Writing), which emphasized a balanced development of English competence
236 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

in the four skill areas, and explained the study’s purpose. With the permission
from the individual instructors, the author visited individual classrooms and
invited students to voluntarily participate. All the students were instructed
about the study’s purpose, and all of them chose to participate in the present
study. They received detailed information about how to answer the question-
naire used. The data collection lasted for about 50 minutes. All the participat-
ing students were presented with a pre-paid lunch ticket for use in the
university cafeteria for their cooperation.

Instrumentation

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

To investigate the two research questions posed in the present study, a student
questionnaire consisting of two major parts was developed based on the relevant
literature about L2 anxiety. In the first part of the questionnaire, students were
asked to provide information about demographic variables, such as gender, age,
and area of specialization. The second part assessed student’s degree of EFL
anxiety across five domains (general FL anxiety, listening anxiety, speaking
anxiety, reading anxiety, and writing anxiety). All the questionnaire items
were based on a 7-point Likert scale with the values ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to ensure sufficient variations among the item
scores. Negative items were recoded before data analysis so that a higher value
represented a stronger endorsement of the construct measured by each scale. All
the items in the student’s questionnaire were initially written in English and
translated into Korean. Back-translation was performed to check the accuracy
of the Korean version of the questionnaire, which was then altered as required.
Detailed information of each of the anxiety scales followed. The English version
of the questionnaire is attached in the Supplementary Appendix A.

General FL Anxiety Scale

In order to measure student’s general FL anxiety, FLCAS developed by Horwitz
et al. (1986) was used with modification. Specifically, based on the advice of
Cheng et al. (1999), the words foreign language and language appearing in the
original version of FLCAS were replaced by the word English to maximize the
appropriacy to the Korean EFL context. Previous validation studies (e.g.
Horwitz 1986) have suggested that FLCAS has very good psychometric proper-
ties. Item analysis of the students’ responses to the 33 FLCAS items, however,
detected an item with very low item–total correlation (i.e. Item 22, item–total
correlation = 0.077). Hence, this item was removed from the subsequent data
analysis. Reliability evidence as measured by Cronbach’s a was 0.932 with the
remaining 32 items.

Listening Anxiety Scale

The 33-item FLLAS designed by Kim (2000) was used. No modification was
made since the original version of FLLAS was developed for the primary
 T.-I. PAE 237

purpose of assessing Korean EFL students’ listening anxiety. The test–retest

reliability of this scale, as reported by its developer (Kim 2000, 2005), was
0.85, and the criterion-related validity, when correlated with FLCAS and the
Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger 1983), was 0.70 and 0.33, respectively.
This indicates that FLLAS has desirable convergent and divergent validity. Item
analysis of FLLAS identified one item with item discrimination lower than 0.2,
and accordingly this item was removed from the item pool. Cronbach’s a with
the final 32 items was 0.942.

Speaking Anxiety Scale

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

The measure of speaking anxiety consisting of two subscales (in-class and
out-of-class English-speaking anxiety) was constructed, drawing on previous
studies on L2 speaking anxiety. Regarding speaking anxiety in the English
classroom, a total of nine items were derived from previous L2 anxiety studies,
six from Woodrow (2006), and three from the Attitude/Motivation Test
Battery (Gardner 1985). Since no measures of anxiety exclusively focusing
on speaking anxiety outside the classroom were available in the Korean EFL
context, five items were developed, based on a focus group interview (Morgan
1997) with 10 students who were not included in the sample but represented
the overall sample characteristics in terms of gender, age, and area of study.
The interviewees were asked about their own stressful experiences wherein
they had been required to speak English outside the classroom. Answers from
the interviewees indicated that Korean EFL university students are highly
likely to feel an increased level of speaking anxiety, when they have a job
interview in English, start a conversation with an unknown foreigner, give
street directions to foreigners, provide services in English when doing a
part-time job, or talk over the phone in English. Item analysis of 14 speaking
anxiety items showed that two of the newly developed items had very low
item discrimination power, and these items were excluded from the item pool.
Cronbach’s a of the speaking anxiety scale with the final 12 items was 0.915.

Reading Anxiety Scale

An adapted version of FLRAS developed by Saito et al. (1999) was used to
measure Korean EFL student’s English reading anxiety. The word English
took the place of the words French, Russian, Japanese in the original FLRAS,
as recommended by previous studies (Cheng et al. 1999; Elkhafaifi 2005).
Upon close examination of the 20 FLRAS items, however, two were deemed
to be inappropriate for measuring Korean students’ English reading anxiety
(Item 10: ‘By the time you get past the funny letters and symbols in English,
it’s hard to remember what you’re reading about’; Item 11: ‘I am worried
about all the new symbols you have to learn in order to read English’), and
were therefore removed from the scale. As all of the study participants had
been learning English for at least 11 years, it was inferred that most of the
238 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

students must have been familiar with English letters and symbols. Item ana-
lysis of the remaining 18 FLRAS items indicated that 5 of the 18 had very poor,
and even negative, item-total correlations. Therefore, these items were also
removed. Internal consistency evidence as measured by Cronbach’s a was 0.85
with the final 13 items.

Writing Anxiety Scale

The second language version of the Daly–Miller Writing Apprehension Scale
(Daly and Miller 1975) was adopted. This scale has been widely used to assess
students’ writing apprehension in both the first and second language contexts

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

(Cheng et al. 1999; Cheng 2002; Lee 2005). Previous validation studies have
suggested that the scale is both valid and reliable (Cornwell and McKay 2000).
As was the case with FLCAS, slight modifications were made in order to sen-
sitize the scale to the local context. Specifically, the word English or in English
was added to the original version of Daly and Miller’s scale to make sure that
the respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire items in reference to
English writing, as per the recommendation from Cheng et al. (1999).
Cronbach’s a of the writing anxiety scale with a total of 26 items was 0.954.

Competing models
To analyze the exact relationships among the four skill-based anxieties, a set of
competing models were developed, and the adequacy of each model was stat-
istically evaluated.

Model 1 (Baseline Model)

This model postulated that the four skill-based anxieties were distinguishable
from each other, and accordingly a four-factor solution of the four skills was
specified. However, the four factors were allowed to be correlated with each
other since these factors share some proportions of a common variance asso-
ciated with general FL anxiety. This four-factor model was the least restrictive
model, and served as a baseline, against which successively more restrictive
models were compared (Bentler and Bonett 1980; Hsiao and Oxford 2002).

Model 2A (three-factor: reading, writing, and oral anxiety)

This three-factor model combined listening and speaking anxieties into one
anxiety factor (Oral Factor), while keeping reading and writing anxieties sepa-
rated. Hence, three correlated factors (i.e. reading, writing, and oral anxiety)
were modeled to explain this relationship.

Model 2B (three-factor: listening, speaking, and written anxiety)

This model was created by collapsing writing and reading anxieties into one
anxiety factor (Written Factor), leaving the other two factors unchanged.
 T.-I. PAE 239

Model 2C (three-factor: listening, reading, and productive anxiety)

This model assumed that one anxiety factor was sufficient to account for the
variances in the writing and speaking anxieties. Therefore, three correlated
factors (listening, reading, productive anxiety) were specified in the model.

Model 2D (three-factor: speaking, writing, and receptive anxiety)

This model was developed in order to test the possibility that L2 anxieties
related to the receptive skills (i.e. reading and listening) could be subsumed
under a more general anxiety factor (Receptive Factor). Thus, three correlated

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

factors (writing, speaking, and receptive anxiety) were modeled to explain the
variances related to the four skill-based anxieties.

Model 3A (two-factor: oral anxiety versus written anxiety)

This model was formed based on the assumption that two correlated factors
(i.e. oral versus written anxiety factor) were sufficient to account for the vari-
ations among the four skill-based anxieties. Therefore, listening and speaking
anxieties were merged into one general anxiety factor (Oral Factor), and read-
ing and writing anxieties into the other one (Written Factor).

Model 3B (two-factor: productive anxiety versus receptive anxiety)

This model was composed of two general anxiety factors, each measuring pro-
ductive and receptive language skills. This model examined the possibility that
the variations among the four skill-based anxieties can be explained by two
general anxiety factors (Productive versus Receptive Anxiety Factor).

Model 4 (one-factor)
This was the most restrictive model and assumed that a single general anxiety
factor can account for all the inter-correlations among the four skill-based
anxieties.

Hypotheses
Since Research Question 1 requires a series of model-testing procedures, three
hypotheses were generated to investigate the statistical relationship among the
four skill-based anxieties. Hypothesis 1 posited that the three-factor models
(i.e. Models 2A–2D), which were more constrained than the four-factor model
(i.e. Baseline Model), would not be significantly worse than the Baseline
Model (Model 1), indicating that the combination of two skill-specific anxieties
into one general anxiety factor (e.g. Oral, Written, Productive, or Receptive
Anxiety Factor) would be supported by the data. This hypothesis suggests that
the two skill-specific anxieties subsumed under a more general anxiety factor
(e.g. Oral Anxiety Factor) are not statistically different from each other.
240 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

Regarding Hypothesis 2, it was hypothesized that the two-factor models

(Models 3A and 3B) would not be statistically different from the Baseline
Model, which shows that a simultaneous specification of the four skill-based
anxieties into two general anxiety factors (e.g. Oral Anxiety versus Written
Anxiety) would be supported by the data. This hypothesis tests the possibility
that two general anxiety factors are sufficient to account for the variances in
the four skill-based anxieties. Finally, Hypothesis 3 assumed that one-factor
model (Model 4) would not be significantly worse than the Baseline Model.
Hypothesis 3 was based on the idea that one general anxiety factor can explain
all the complexities of anxiety unique to each domain of the four language

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

skills.

Analyses
The relationships among the four skill-based anxieties (i.e. Research Question
1) were analyzed under the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) framework.
In this regard, a series of CFA models (i.e. Models 1–4) were developed in order
to test the formulated hypotheses. To facilitate the hypothesis testing, the
model data fit of each CFA model, as measured by chi-square, was compared
with that of the baseline model using a series of chi-square difference tests
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Hsiao and Oxford 2002; Pae 2008).
A chi-square difference test is based on the logic that the difference in
chi-square values between two nested models is distributed as chi-square
with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom for
the two nested models (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Reise et al. 1993).
Hence, a significant increase in chi-square difference value between two
nested models suggests that the fit of the nested model is significantly worse
than the baseline model. For example, if Model 2A, which combined speaking
and listening anxieties into one general anxiety factor (i.e. Oral Anxiety) but
kept reading and writing anxieties independent, showed a significant
chi-square increase from the baseline model at the given degrees of freedom
difference, this would demonstrate that the combination of listening and
speaking anxieties significantly worsens the fit of Model 2A compared with
the baseline model, thereby verifying that listening anxiety and speaking anx-
iety are statistically independent.
Because chi-square values tend to be inflated in a large sample size, three
supplementary fit statistics [Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit
Index (NNFI), and Normed Fit Index (NFI)], which are widely used in the
context of nested model comparison, were also reported (Schumacker and
Lomax 2004). Incremental fit indices, such as CFI, NNFI, and NFI evaluate
the fit of the proposed model in reference to the baseline model. Values of
these three fit indices range from 0 to 1, and a value of 0.9 or above generally
suggests an acceptable model data fit (Bentler and Bonett 1980). All the par-
ameters in the CFA models were calibrated through maximum likelihood
 T.-I. PAE 241

estimation procedure via LISREL 8.5 program. Input data were provided to the
LISREL program in the form of covariance matrix.
Since the CFA models used in the present study involved a great number of
observed variables (83 skill-based anxiety items), a data reduction procedure
was performed based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To determine an
optimum number of factors for each anxiety scale, an Eigenvalue of one or
above served as the criterion. The number of factors for each anxiety scale was
further verified through CFA procedure by examining the significance of the
chi-square difference value between the factor model indicated by
the Eigenvalue criterion and a more parsimonious factor model. Once the

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

number of factors for each scale was confirmed through the CFA procedure,
corresponding factor scores were extracted from each scale. These factor scores
were used in the hypothesis testing through the LISREL analyses.
With regards to Research Question 2, which concerned the relation of the
four skill-based anxieties to general FL classroom anxiety, standard multiple
regression procedures were utilized. To this end, an aggregate score was cre-
ated for each of the five scales included in the questionnaire. These five ag-
gregate scores were standardized and were entered into the regression
analyses. This regression analysis was expected to gauge the predictive
power of each of the four skill-based anxiety scores in relation to FLCAS,
when the effects of the other anxiety scores were statistically partialled out.
In this respect, it must be noted that most of previous studies on the relation-
ship between skilled-based anxieties and FLCAS have only focused on the
bivariate correlation between FLCAS and an individual skill-based anxiety
(e.g. listening anxiety), thus ignoring the simultaneous influences coming
from the other types of skill-based anxieties. Results of the present regression
analyses will therefore complement the existing data and make a more en-
lightened contribution to L2 anxiety research.

RESULTS
Correlation analysis
Table 1 presents the inter-correlation matrix among the five scale scores. Since
most of previous studies about L2 anxiety were conducted based on correlation
analyses, this matrix was expected to provide comparable data in reference to
the previous findings reported in the literature. The inter-correlation matrix
indicated that all of the five aggregate scores were significantly correlated with
each other.

Dimensionality of the four skill-based anxieties

Before analyzing the relationships between the four skill-based anxieties, the
dimensionality of each skill-based anxiety was examined. The following
242 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

Table 1: Inter-correlation matrix (N = 229)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. FLCAS 1.00
2. LAS 0.77* 1.00
3. SAS 0.71* 0.63* 1.00
4. RAS 0.66* 0.65* 0.48* 1.00
5. WAS 0.61* 0.55* 0.62* 0.57* 1.00

*p < 0.01.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

Note: FLCAS = Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale; LAS = Listening Anxiety Scale;
SAS = Speaking Anxiety Scale; RAS = Reading Anxiety Scale; WAS = Writing Anxiety Scale.

presents the results of the dimensionality check for each of the four skill-based
anxiety scales.
In the LAS, the initial EFA procedure identified four factors showing an
Eigenvalue of one or above. The fit of the four-factor model was compared
with that of a three-factor model to see if a more parsimonious model (i.e.
three-factor model) would represent the sample covariance of the 32 LAS
items better than the four-factor model does. Comparison of the model-data
fit between the two nested models (i.e. four-factor versus three-factor so-
lution) was made via chi-square difference tests, as explained in the ana-
lyses section. The three-factor model produced a chi-square value of
1419.93 with 461 degrees of freedom, whereas the chi-square value of
the four-factor model was 1420.02 with 458 degrees of freedom. The dif-
ference in the chi-square value between the two nested models was not
significant [
2 (3) = 0.09, p > 0.05], indicating that a four-factor model was
not significantly better than a three-factor model. Therefore, a three-factor
solution was targeted for the LAS. The three factors accounted for 50.6 per
cent of the total variance. In interpreting a factor, if an item showed a
primary loading of 0.50 or above and secondary loadings (i.e. cross loadings)
of 0.25 or below, then this item was considered to be a member of a factor,
as consistent with previous research (e.g. Cheng et al. 1999). With regard to
the first factor of the LAS, 10 items were found to meet the factor criteria
and a majority of these items seem to have in common a sense of being
nervous and worried in English listening. Therefore, the first factor was
named Nervousness and Worry in Listening English (Items 2, 5, 7, 16,
17, 18, 21, 23, 30, and 33). The second factor received strong loadings
from six items and this factor appears to reflect the difficulties associated
with English listening. This factor was labeled Difficulties in Listening
English (Items 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, and 32). Three items were included in
the third factor, and this factor was assigned the label of Self-Confidence in
Listening English (Items 14, 25, and 31).
 T.-I. PAE 243

The same analytical procedure was applied to the verification of factor struc-
ture for the remaining skill-based anxieties. In the SAS, EFA with a total of 12
items indicated a two-factor structure. Again, the fit of the two-factor model
was compared with that of a one-factor model through the CFA. The
one-factor model resulted in a chi-square value of 469.33 with 54 degrees of
freedom, compared with 310.62 with 53 degrees of freedom in the two-factor
model. The chi-square difference between the two models was significant [
2
(1) = 158.71, p < 0.05], suggesting that a two-factor solution explains the
sample covariance of the 12 SAS items significantly better than a one-factor
solution does. Hence, a two-factor solution was selected for the SAS. The two

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

factors explained 73.6 per cent of the total variance. The first factor consisted of
five items and this factor was named In-Class English Speaking Anxiety (Items
1, 3, 5, 10, and 11) since these items measured speaking anxiety in the context
of English classroom. The second factor had three items which reflected
English speaking anxiety outside the classroom. Hence, this factor was labeled
Out-of-Class English Speaking Anxiety (Items 7, 8, and 12).
The RAS with a total of 13 items was initially found to have a three-factor
structure according to EFA. Subsequent CFA showed that the three-factor
model produced a chi-square value of 182.06 with 62 degrees of freedom,
compared with 237.40 with 64 degrees of freedom in the two-factor model.
The difference in chi-square values between the two nested models was stat-
istically significant [
2 (2) = 55.34, p < 0.05]. This demonstrated that a
three-factor structure was a significantly better model than the two-factor
model. The three factors accounted for 54.8 per cent of the total variance.
The first factor included four items that primarily addressed discomfort and
intimidation experienced in the process of reading English. This factor was
named Discomfort and Intimidation in Reading English (Items, 4, 8, 9, and
17). The second factor contained two items that seem to describe unhappy or
annoyed reactions when reading English. This factor was labeled Distress in
Reading English (Items 1 and 6). The last factor was composed of two items
that assessed pleasure and self-confidence in reading English. This factor was
assigned the label of Enjoyment and Self-Confidence in Reading English (Items
12 and 13).
In the WAS, initial EFA suggested a three-factor structure for the 26 WAS
items. The model consisting of three factors presented a chi-square value of
950.29 with 296 degrees of freedom, whereas a more parsimonious model with
a two-factor solution resulted in a chi-square value of 1084.75 with 298 de-
grees of freedom. The difference in the chi-square values between the two
models indicated a significant chi-square increase from the two-factor model
[
2 (2) = 134.46, p < 0.05], hence confirming that a three-factor solution was
a significantly better model than the two-factor model. The three factors ex-
plained 60.6 per cent of the total variance. The first factor had seven items that
seem to measure pleasure and enjoyment experienced in the process of writing
English. Thus, this factor constitutes a Pleasure of Writing English dimension
(Items 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, and 20). The second factor comprised four items,
244 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

and most of these items tapped lack of confidence in writing English. This
factor was named Low Self-Confidence in Writing English (Items 16, 21, 22,
and 24). Finally, the third factor was defined by four items, and these items
seem to measure the extent to which learners avoid writing English. This factor
was labeled Reluctance toward Writing English (Items 1, 4, 5, and 8).

Test of the Baseline Model

Using the information about the optimum number of factors, data reduction
procedure was applied to a total of 83 skill-based anxiety items across the four

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

skill areas, thus extracting a total of 11 factors (3 for LAS, RAS, and WAS, and 2
for SAS). These 11 factors were used to generate a series of competing CFA
models.
Initial run of the baseline CFA model (i.e. Model 1) produced a chi-square
value of 171.60 with 38 degrees of freedom. This model showed an acceptable
fit of the model to the data (i.e. CFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.89). To make the fit of the
model even better, correlated errors were allowed between two indicator vari-
ables measuring a similar construct, as advised by previous SEM research (e.g.
Byrne 1994; Wang and Guthrie 2004; Lee 2005; Pae and Shin 2011). In this
respect, the modification indices as provided by the LISREL program suggested
a correlated error between RAS3 (i.e. RAS Factor 3) and WAS1 (i.e. WAS
Factor 1), between SAS1 and RAS2, and between LAS1 and LAS2. Among
these suggestions, allowing a correlated error between LAS1 and LAS2 was
deemed theoretically appropriate because these indicators measured a similar
construct. This makes intuitive sense since learners with a greater level of
nervousness in listening English (i.e. LAS1) tend to have more difficulties in
listening English (i.e. LAS2). Therefore, error variances between LAS1 and
LAS2 were allowed to be correlated.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual schematization of the final Baseline Model.
This revised model with a correlated error between LAS1 and LAS2 produced a
chi-square value of 101.31 with 37 degrees of freedom and showed enhanced
model-data fit indices (i.e. CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.97). This model
served as the baseline CFA model for the subsequent analyses.
Detailed information about the strength of the Baseline Model was pre-
sented in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, all of the standardized factor loadings were significant,
ranging from 0.53 to 0.95, which suggests that all the indicator variables are
sufficient in their representation of the corresponding factors (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) and the
composite construct reliability (CCR) were computed in order to examine con-
vergent validity. AVE and CCR evaluate whether the indicator variables are
representative of the related factor. In general, an AVE value of 0.50 or above
and a CCR value of 0.70 or greater are indicative of evidence of convergent
validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The reported AVE values ranged from 0.58
to 0.85, and all CCR values were 0.80 or higher. These results supported
 T.-I. PAE 245

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

Figure 1: Conceptual path diagram of the Baseline Model

correspondence between the indicators and their related factors in the Baseline
Model.
Table 3 provides information about the degree to which constructs with
dissimilar theoretical orientations differ from each other (i.e. discriminant val-
idity). In order to evaluate the evidence of discriminant validity among the
four anxiety factors, AVE values of the four anxiety factors were compared
with the squared correlations among the anxiety factors, following the recom-
mendation from Fornell and Larcker (1981). As demonstrated by Table 3, none
of the squared correlations exceeded the AVE values. This suggests that the
Baseline Model with four factors has acceptable discriminant validity.
246 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

Table 2: Assessments of the Baseline Model

Factors/indicators Standardized AVE CCR
factor loadings

WAS 0.70 0.88

WAS1 0.81
WAS2 0.91
WAS3 0.79
RAS 0.58 0.80
RAS1 0.90

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

RAS2 0.67
RAS3 0.53
LAS 0.63 0.83
LAS1 0.82
LAS2 0.88
LAS3 0.58
SAS 0.85 0.92
SAS1 0.90
SAS2 0.95

Note: N = 229; dependent variable = FLCAS; R2 = 0.71; AVE = Average Variance Extracted;
CCR = Composite Construct Reliability.

Table 3: Test of discriminant validity

Factors 1 2 3 4

1. WAS 0.70 0.35 0.32 0.37

2. RAS 0.58 0.48 0.26
3. LAS 0.63 0.42
4. SAS 0.85

Note: The squared values of the correlations between factors are presented in the upper
off diagonal. AVEs are presented in boldface type along the diagonal.

Results for research question 1

The relationship between the four skill-based anxieties was systematically as-
sessed through a series of chi-square difference tests. The differences in
chi-square values between the Baseline Model and each successively more
constrained model (e.g. Model 2A) are summarized in Table 4. As shown in
the table, the significant increase of chi-square value from the Baseline Model
 T.-I. PAE 247

Table 4: Chi-square difference tests

Model 2 df (dfdiff) CFI NNFI NFI

1 101.31 37 – 0.98 0.96 0.97

2A 290.81 40 189.5* 0.93 0.90 0.92
2B 236.56 40 135.25* 0.94 0.91 0.93
2C 353.11 40 251.8* 0.92 0.89 0.91
2D 190.22 40 88.91* 0.96 0.94 0.95
3A 354.73 42 253.42* 0.92 0.89 0.91

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

3B 376.88 42 275.57* 0.92 0.88 0.90
4 461.23 43 359.92* 0.89 0.85 0.88

*Significant chi-square increase at 0.01 or 0.05 a level.

Note: N = 229; dfdiff = difference in degrees of freedom between the baseline model and each
corresponding model; 2diff = difference in chi-squares between the baseline model and each
corresponding model; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; NFI =
Normed Fit Index.

to Model 2A (i.e. 290.81 101.31 = 189.5, p < 0.05) verified that listening anx-
iety was statistically different from speaking anxiety, when reading and writing
anxieties were kept separate. This finding suggests that the existence of oral
anxiety as an independent construct was not supported by the data. It was also
found that reading anxiety was statistically different from writing anxiety, as
indicated by the significant difference in chi-square value between the
Baseline Model and Model 2B [
2 (3) = 135.25, p < 0.05], signaling that com-
bining reading and writing anxieties into a more general construct of written
anxiety did not receive empirical support from the data. A similar pattern was
found for the relationship between speaking and writing anxieties, as evi-
denced by the significant increase of the chi-square value from the Baseline
Model to Model 2C [
2 (3) = 251.8, p < 0.05]. Lastly, the significant increase
in the chi-square value from the Baseline Model to Model 2D [
2 (3) = 88.91,
p < 0.05] suggests that reading anxiety was statistically different from listening
anxiety when speaking anxiety was specified to be independent of writing
anxiety. The results of a series of chi-square difference tests between the
Baseline Model and Models 2A through 2D led to the rejection of
Hypothesis 1, which assumed that the three-factor models (i.e. Models 2A–
D) would not be significantly worse than the Baseline model. These results
showed a sharp contrast to the significant correlations among the four
skill-based anxieties reported in Table 1.
Results of chi-square difference tests between the Baseline Model and
Models 3A and 3B also supported rejection of Hypothesis 2. To be specific,
the chi-square difference between the Baseline Model and Model 3A, which
specified a two-factor solution (i.e. Oral versus Written Anxiety), was
253.42 (i.e. 354.73 101.31 = 253.42) with 5 degrees of freedom difference
248 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

(i.e. 42 37 = 5), and this increase in chi-square value was significant both at
0.01 and 0.05 a level [
2 (5) = 253.42, p < 0.01], providing evidence that a
simultaneous specification of the four skill-based anxieties into the oral versus
written dichotomy was not empirically supported. In a similar vein, Model 3B,
which posited a two-factor solution (i.e. Productive versus Receptive Anxiety),
produced a chi-square value of 376.88 with 42 degrees of freedom. A com-
parison of Model 3B with the Baseline Model revealed a significant increase in
chi-square value from the Baseline to Model 3B [i.e.
2 (5) = 275.57,
p < 0.05], hence statistically disproving the re-conceptualization of the four
skill-based anxieties into two related constructs of productive versus receptive

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

skill anxiety.
Hypothesis 3, which postulated that a single general anxiety factor would be
sufficient to explain all the inter-correlations among the four skill-based anxi-
eties, was tested by comparing the model-data fit between the Baseline Model
and Model 4. The results of the chi-square difference tests showed a significant
increase in chi-square value from the Baseline Model to Model 4 [i.e.
2
(6) = 359.92, p < 0.05], therefore rejecting Hypothesis 3. This indicated that a
single anxiety factor cannot account for all the complexities associated with
skill-based language anxieties.

Results for research question 2

Table 5 presents results from the multiple regression analysis that examined
the strength of the prediction made by the four skill-based anxieties on the
FLCAS scores. According to Table 5, each of the four skill-based anxieties ex-
plained a significant proportion of variance associated with FLCAS, as indi-
cated by the significant values of standardized regression coefficient (i.e. ),
when the effects of the other skill-based anxieties were held constant. These
results were compatible with the inter-correlations reported in Table 1, and
demonstrated that each of the four skill-based anxieties made an independent
contribution to students’ general FL classroom anxiety. The four skill-based
anxieties explained about 71 per cent of the variance surrounding FLCAS.

Table 5: Multiple regression analysis

Model  t-statistic p-value

LAS 0.383 7.61 0.000

SAS 0.302 6.33 0.000
RAS 0.220 4.73 0.000
WAS 0.095 2.05 0.041

Note: N = 229; dependent variable = FLCAS; R2 = 0.71.

 T.-I. PAE 249

Among the four skill-based anxieties, listening anxiety made the biggest con-
tribution (i.e.  = 0.383) to FLCAS, followed by speaking anxiety
(i.e.  = 0.302) and reading anxiety (i.e.  = 0.220). In the case of listening
anxiety, one unit increase in listening anxiety was associated with a 0.383
unit increase in the FLCAS score when the effects of other anxieties were
controlled for. The predictive power of writing anxiety, however, was mar-
ginal, as indicated by the smaller value of regression coefficient (i.e.  = 0.095,
p = 0.041).

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

DISCUSSION
The present study was conducted to provide empirical answers to the following
two important unresolved issues: (i) the relationship between the four
skill-based anxieties and (ii) the relation of the skill-based anxieties to general
FL classroom anxiety. With regards to the first research question, which, to the
best knowledge of the researcher, has not previously been investigated in the
L2 anxiety literature, preliminary correlation analysis as reported in Table 1
indicated a significant relationship between each of the four skill-based anxi-
eties. The results of a series of CFA chi-square difference tests, however, de-
tected an independent existence of each of the four skill-based anxieties as a
distinctive construct, which contradicted the results of correlation analysis re-
ported in Table 1. This attests to the apparent methodological advantages of
employing confirmatory approaches in the study of the relationships between
theoretically important variables. Specifically, the results of the hypothesis
testing procedure empirically disproved the possibility of a superordinate con-
struct, such as oral or written anxiety, and receptive or productive anxiety, as
an independent construct. This finding suggests that one general anxiety factor
is not sufficient to explain the variances associated with L2 anxiety across the
four skill areas. Therefore, re-conceptualizing the four skill-based anxieties
into a more general construct was not validated by the present study results.
This finding implies that anxieties arising from each of the four skill areas
should receive independent and balanced attention from L2 researchers and
practitioners.
Although all of the four skill-based anxieties should be considered different
constructs, the relative closeness or distance among them also merits discus-
sion. As shown in Table 4, out of the four models specifying a three-factor
solution (i.e. Models 2A–2D), the chi-square difference between the Baseline
Model and Model 2D [i.e.
2 (3) = 88.91], which merged listening and read-
ing anxieties together, was much smaller than the chi-square difference values
for any other comparisons [e.g. for Model 2A,
2 (3) = 189.5], hence reveal-
ing more of a relationship between listening and reading anxieties. By the
same logic, the chi-square difference between the Baseline Model and Model
3A, which assumed a two-factor solution (i.e. oral and written anxiety), was
much smaller than the difference between the Baseline Model and Model 3B,
250 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED

indicating that oral versus written pairing is better than the receptive versus
productive division in explaining skill-based L2 anxieties.
The second research question was concerned with the relationship between
the four skill-based anxieties and general FL classroom anxiety, as operationa-
lized by FLCAS. Most of the previous studies examining this issue have focused
on the bivariate correlation between FLCAS and a selected skill-based anxiety,
thus ignoring any interdependence among the four skill-based anxieties. The
study results demonstrated that each of the four skill-based anxieties made an
independent contribution to the prediction of FLCAS, even when the effects of
the other skill-based anxieties were controlled for. This finding forms a mean-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014

ingful addition to the existing data on L2 anxiety, which focused on an indi-
vidual relationship between FLCAS and a selected skill-based anxiety (Cheng
et al. 1999; Saito et al. 1999; Kim 2000, 2005; Cheng 2002; Elkhafaifi 2005;
Woodrow 2006). A close investigation of the standardized regression coeffi-
cients (i.e. s) as displayed in Table 5, however, discloses that listening and
speaking anxieties had a stronger impact on the students’ FLCAS scores than
reading and writing anxieties did. This finding indicated that apprehension
about oral communication played a more important role in accounting for
the variance in the FLCAS scores, hence lending empirical support to the
construct validity of FLCAS as originally conceptualized by Horwitz and col-
leagues (Horwitz 1986; Horwitz et al. 1986; Aida 1994; Saito et al. 1999). Given
the finding that a substantial amount of the variances (i.e. R2 = 0.71) associated
with FLCAS was explained by the four predictor variables alone, it is further
inferred that the relationship between FLCAS and skill-based anxieties was
much less confounded by extraneous variables, thereby heightening the con-
ceptual links between language-skill-specific anxieties and general
classroom-based L2 anxiety.
These findings, taken together, provide important implications both for re-
searchers and practitioners in the field. Most of all, L2 classroom teachers are
advised to give balanced attention to each of the four skill-based anxieties since
the present study results evidenced an independent relationship among the
four skill-based anxieties. This suggests that anxiety arising from L2 training in
each skill area should receive due attention.
Finally, caution is advised for generalizing the present study results. As with
other empirical studies, it should be admitted that the external validity of these
results is limited by the nature of the sample, as well as the properties of the
instruments utilized. In a related manner, the use of self-reported measures
also limits the generalization of the findings reported here. When using ques-
tionnaires, there is always a possibility that participants may provide socially
expected answers instead of what they believe is true.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary material is available at Applied Linguistics online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Jane Zuengler, Co-Editor of Applied Linguistics, and the four anonymous
reviewers for their insightful and informative feedback on the earlier versions of this article.
REFERENCES
Aida, Y. 1994. ‘Examining of Horwitz, Horwitz,
and Cope’s construct of FL anxiety: The case of
students of Japanese,’ Modern Language Journal
78: 155–68.
Anderson, J. C. and D. Gerbing. 1988.
‘Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach,’
Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23.
Bandura, A. 2001. ‘Social cognitive theory: An
agentic perspective,’ Annual Review of Psychology
52: 1–26.
Bentler, P. M. and D. Bonett. 1980.
‘Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures,’ Psychological
Bulletin 88: 588–606.
Byrne, B. M. 1994. Structural Equation Modeling
with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming. Sage.
Cheng, Y. 2002. ‘Factors associated with FL writ-
ing anxiety,’ Foreign Language Annals 35:
647–56.
Cheng, Y., E. Horwitz, and D. Schallert. 1999.
‘Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and
speaking components,’ Language Learning 49:
417–46.
Cornwell, S. and T. McKay. 2000. ‘Establishing
a valid, reliable measure of writing apprehen-
sion for Japanese students,’ JALT Journal 22:
114–39.
Daly, J. A. and M. Miller. 1975. ‘The empirical
development of an instrument to measure
writing apprehension,’ Research in the Teaching
of English 9: 242–9.
Elkhafaifi, H. 2005. ‘Listening comprehension
and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom,’
Modern Language Journal 89: 206–20.
Fornell, C. and D. Larcker. 1981. ‘Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error,’ Journal of
Marketing Research 18: 39–50.
Gardner, R. C. 1985. The Attitude Motivation Test
Battery: Technical Report. Department of
Psychology, University of West Ontario.
Horwitz, E. 1986. ‘Preliminary evidence for the
reliability and validity of a foreign language
anxiety scale,’ TESOL Quarterly 20: 559–62.
T.-I. PAE 251
Horwitz, E., M. Horwitz, and J. Cope. 1986.
‘Foreign language classroom anxiety,’ Modern
Language Journal 70: 125–32.
Hsiao, T. and R. Oxford. 2002. ‘Comparing the-
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014
ories of language learning strategies: a con-
firmatory factor analysis,’ Modern Language
Journal 86: 368–83.
Kim, J. 2000. Foreign Language Listening Anxiety:
A Study of Korean Students Learning English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas, Austin.
Kim, J. 2005. ‘The reliability and validity of a
foreign language listening anxiety scale,’
Korean Journal of English Language and
Linguistics 5: 213–35.
Lee, S. 2005. ‘Facilitating and inhibiting factors
in English as a foreign language writing per-
formance: A model testing with structural
equation modeling,’ Language Learning 55:
335–74.
MacIntyre, P. and R. C. Gardner. 1989.
‘Anxiety and second language learning:
Toward a theoretical clarification,’ Language
Learning 39: 251–75.
Mills, N., F. Pajares, and C. Herron. 2006. ‘A
reevaluation of the role of anxiety:
Self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to
reading and listening proficiency,’ Foreign
Language Annals 39: 276–95.
Morgan, D. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative
Research. Sage Publications.
Pae, T. 2008. ‘Second language orientation and
self-determination theory: A structural analysis
of the factors affecting second language
achievement,’ Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 27: 5–27.
Pae, T. and S. Shin. 2011. ‘Examining the effects
of differential instructional methods on the
model of foreign language achievement,’
Learning and Individual Differences 21/2: 215–22.
Phillips, E. 1992. ‘The effects of language anx-
iety on students’ oral test performance and at-
titudes,’ Modern Language Journal 76: 14–26.
Price, M. 1991. ‘The subjective experiences of
foreign language anxiety: interviews with anx-
ious students’ in E. K. Horwitz and D. J. Young
252 SKILL-BASED L2 ANXIETIES REVISITED
(eds): Language Anxiety: From Theory and
Research to Classroom Implications. Prentice Hall,
pp. 101–8.
Reise, S., K. Widaman, and R. Pugh. 1993.
‘Confirmatory factor analysis and item re-
sponse theory: Two approaches for exploring
measurement invariance,’ Psychological Bulletin
114: 552–66.
Saito, Y. and K. Samimy. 1996. ‘Foreign lan-
guage anxiety and language performance: A
study of learning anxiety in beginning, inter-
mediate, and advanced-level college students
of Japanese,’ Foreign Language Annals 29:
239–51.
Saito, Y., E. Horwitz, and T. Garza. 1999.
‘Foreign language reading anxiety,’ Modern
Language Journal 83: 202–18.
Schumacker, R. and R. Lomax. 2004. A
Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spielberger, C. D. 1983. Manual for the State-trait
Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wang, J. H. and J. Guthrie. 2004. ‘Modeling
the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, amount of reading, and past read-
ing achievement on text comprehension be-
tween U.S. and Chinese students,’ Reading
Research Quarterly 39: 162–86.
Woodrow, L. 2006. ‘Anxiety and speaking
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Ottawa on May 8, 2014
English as a second language,’ Regional
Language Center Journal 37: 308–28.
Young, D. J. 1986. ‘The relationship between
anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency
ratings,’ Foreign Language Annals 19: 439–45.