RCMAS

1. THE REVISED CHILDREN’S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (RCMAS)
“What I Think and Feel”
TYPE OF INSTRUMENT:
The RCMAS is a 37-item self-report inventory used to measure anxiety in
children, for clinical purposes (diagnosis and treatment evaluation),
educational settings, and for research purposes. The RCMAS consists of
28 Anxiety items and 9 Lie (social desirability) items. Each item is
purported to embody a feeling or action that reflects an aspect of anxiety,
hence the subtitle, “What I think and Feel”. It is a relatively brief
instrument, which has been subjected to extensive study to ensure that it
is psychometrically sound. However, it is also advisable that the RCMAS
only be used as part of a complete clinical evaluation when diagnosing
and treating a child’s anxiety (Gerard and Reynolds, 1999, p.323).
DEVISED BY:
The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale was developed by Reynolds
and Richmond (1978) to assess “the degree and quality of anxiety
experienced by children and adolescents” (Gerald and Reynolds, 1999, p.
323). It is based on the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS), which
was devised by Casteneda, McCandless and Palermo (1956). The Revised
version of the CMAS deletes, adds and reorders items from the CMAS to
meet psychometric standards. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) also
renamed the instrument, “What I Think and Feel”, although subsequent
papers primarily refer to it as the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale (RCMAS).
 History of Development:
Castaneda, McCandless and Palermo (1956) first reported a scale with standardised data, which could be
used to measure anxiety in children, the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS). The CMAS was based
on a trait theory of anxiety. It was an amended version of an instrument used to meas ure manifest
anxiety in adults, Taylor’s (1951) Manifest Anxiety Scale. The Manifest Anxiety Scale was a compilation
of items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
While the CMAS was widely used and published, Reynolds and Richmond (1978) reported a number of
issues with the CMAS that prompted the revision. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) hoped to revise the
CMAS to identify items that meet Flannigan, Peters and Conry’s (1969) “criteria for a good test item”
(p.272), to improve the psychometric properties of the instrument (according to Guilford, 1954), and to
meet the American Psychological Association (1954) guidelines for psychological tests.
Reynolds and Paget (1981) also noted the need to develop an instrument that could measure a broader
range of anxiety and treatment effects, and that could reflect research that suggests that “anxiety is
multidimensional” (, p352). Reynolds and Richmond (1978) also wanted a scale that could be
administered in less time, with individuals or groups of children, aged from 6 to 19 years. The wording
of items had to be adjusted to accommodate the younger children and poor readers.

2. RELIABILITY:
Several types of reliability can be demonstrated with the RCMAS, in terms
of the internal consistency of the instrument, stability, and possibly
equivalence, but not in terms of the inter-rater reliability. Reynolds and
other researches have focused on developing an instrument that was
psychometrically sound and that could be used by a variety of
practitioners (clinicians, teachers and researchers), without attention to
potential variations with application or interpretation in its use.
 Split-Half/Cronbach’s Alpha:
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) argue that the 33 % reduction in the length of the CMAS scale and
reduction in administration time does not detract from the reliability of the RCMAS. The Kuber -
Richardson (KR) analysis of variance method was used to establish coefficients of internal
consistency. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) report that with the 37 items selected for the RCMAS, a
KR20 reliability estimate of .83 is yielded, confirming internal consistency of the RCMAS.
When making technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques, the APA
(1954) note the risks associated with computing reliability and validity estimates on the same
sample analysed to select the test items. Hence, Reynolds and Richmond (1978) conducted a
second, cross-validation assessment of 167 children, from grades two, five, nine, ten and eleven, in
a different school district. This second assessment group yielded a KR20 reliability estimate of .85,
and further support for internal consistency.
Reynolds, Bradley and Steele (1980) administered the RCMAS to 97
kindergarten children and demonstrated reliability with coefficient
alpha ( = .79 with males,  =.85 with females, and  =.82 for the total
sample). These correlations are high and similarly indicate internal
consistency when the RCMAS is used with younger children.
Gerard and Reynolds (1999) also report that with few exceptions, relatively high coefficients alpha
for the total Anxiety Scale score ( = .80 range), are indicative of “good sampling of the general
domain of potential anxiety items” (p.327) and internal consistency according to Cronbach (1951).
 Test-Retest Reliability:
Wisniewski, Mulick, Genshaft and Coury (1987) examined the test-
retest reliabilities of the RCMAS with 161 children in Grades 6 to 8.
Analyses of retesting after one and five weeks indicated “good
reliability” (Pearson correlations from .60 to .88, significant at p  .01,
p. 67) and an insignificant difference between test and retest mean
raw scores. These results would support the stability of the scale over
brief periods.
With retesting after a substantial longer period, nine months, Reynolds
(1981) found a .68 correlation between RCMAS Anxiety Scale scores
and a .58 correlation with the Lie Scale scores, for 534 children in

3. Grades 4 to 6. This would be indicative of relatively high temporal
stability.
 Alternate Form Reliability:
The establishment of temporal , test-retest reliability negates the need to use alternate forms in
many instances.
However, favourable comparisons can be made between the reliability coefficients with the RCMAS
and the CMAS. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) report KR20 reliability estimate of .83 with the
RCMAS and cite comparative estimates with the CMAS. In particular, Kitano (1960) reported a
reliability coefficient of .86; Finch, Montgomery and Deardoff (1974) of .77; and by Allison (1970) of
.84 for boys and .88 for girls. However, there may be some question about whether the RCMAS and
the CMAS are different tests or different forms of an instrument (one an abbreviated and arguably
an improved version, and one a longer version, respectively).
 Inter-rater Reliability:
With Reynolds and Paget (1981), the 4,972 children were variously tested by clinical psychologists,
school psychologists, classroom teachers and school administrators. However, this is primarily a self -
report measure and no statistical comparisons were made regarding the different raters.
VALIDITY:
There is substantive research confirming the validity of the RCMAS as a measure of chronic manifest
anxiety in children, dating back to the original article reporting the development of the RCMAS (Reynolds
and Richmond, 1978). In addition, the RCMAS is frequently used in research to validate other
instruments and to measure treatment effects.
 Content Validity:
In the draft version of the RCMAS, Reynolds and Richmond (1978) added twenty items to cover areas
that teachers and clinicians identified as not being covered by the previous scale. The wording of the
resultant 73 items was modified by reading specialists, to meet the reading level of Grade three children
and to reflect general changes in word usage since the test was first released.
Two item statistics were computed for the 73 draft items, the difficulty index, p, and biserial correlation
of the item to the total test score, rbis. With the Anxiety Scale, items were eliminated if they did not
meet both criteria, with the difficulty index (.3  p  .7) and with biserial correlation (rbis  .4). Lie Scale
items were eliminated if they correlated .30 or higher with the anxiety scale or if they failed to correlate
significantly with any other lie item.
A total of 28 anxiety items (25 from the CMAS and three new items), and nine Lie items were retained
to form the current 37 items of the RCMAS. The results would suggest that the 28 anxiety items that
were finally selected, adequately represent all aspects of the anxiety construct, thereby indicating
content validity.

4.  Construct Validity:
Reynolds and Richmond (1979 ) conducted a factor analysis with the Anxiety Scale items, with the
test development sample of the RCMAS. Three anxiety factors were identified and named, based on
item content: “physiological”, “worry/oversensitivity”, and “concentration.” However, there were a
number of anomalies with the results that were attributed to the small sample size of 329 subjects
compared with the 28 variables.
Reynolds and Paget (1981) attempted to replicate Reynolds and Richmond’s (1979) study with a
much larger sample size of 4,972 children, and to extend the analysis to the Lie Scale items.
Responses were factor analysed through the method of principal factors, which identified a large
general factor on which substantive loadings were found for all 28 Anxiety Scale items but no
loadings above .21 for the Lie Scale items. This would lend support to the RCMAS being a measure
of one construct, anxiety (Ag).
Factors extracted through the factor analysis were then rotated orthogonally through the varimax
procedure, to maximise the variance accounted for by each factor and to increase the distinction
between factors. Examination of Scree plots and eigenvalues identified three to eight factors, but
further analysis and examination of the item content of the factorial groupings indicated the five
factor solution as the most psychologically meaningful and interpretable solution.
The pattern of factor loadings with the five-factor solution revealed two Lie Scale factors (accounting
for 75% and 25% of the variance) and the three distinct Anxiety Scale factors (accounting for 34%,
42% & 24% of the variance). The three Anxiety Scale factors identified by Reynolds and Paget
(1981) also resembled the three found by Reynolds and Richmond (1979) but without the anomalies
found in the earlier research.
Further analysis and additional research has found that the five-factor solution is consistent across
gender, ethnicity (race), and intelligence (Gerard and Reynolds, 1999).
The five factors confirmed by Reynolds and Paget (1981) are as follows:
Anxiety Scale Factors: Item Numbers
The Physiological Factor 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25, 29, 33
The Worry/Oversensitivity Factor 2, 6, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 37
The Concentration Anxiety Factor 3, 11, 15, 23, 27, 31, 35
Lie Scale Factors:
Lie 1 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24
Lie 2 28, 32, 36
Reynolds and Paget (1981) calculated two indices of factorial similarity, the coefficient of
congruence (rc, Harman, 1976; Mulaik, 1971) and the salient variable similarity index (s , Cattell,
1978). Reynolds and Paget (1981) reported rc’s ranging from .91 to .99, and highly significant s-
values (p < .01), which would suggest that the five factors were invariant in relation to gender or
race (ethnicity).
The same invariance was found with the general anxiety factor (Ag) which would lend support to the
construct validity of the RCMAS, or the internal consistency of the RCMAS. Reynolds and Paget
(1981) indicated the need for further analysis of the internal validity of the RCMAS and that they
were currently preparing normative data across gender, race and age (see Reynolds and Paget,
1983).

5. Pina, Silverman, Saavedra and Weems (2001) analysed the RCMAS Lie Scale with 284 anxious
children. Results indicated that the Lie Scale scores were also predictive of the children’s anxiety
levels, and that they could distinguish between children with anxiety disorders and children with
externalising disorders. Hence, the Lie Scale was said to have utility in terms of predicting a child’s
anxiety level.
Debate in the literature also tends to lend support to the Lie Scale being a measure of social
desirability in anxiety, especially with younger children (Reynolds and Richmond, 1978). Dadds,
Perrin and Yule (1998) report indications that social desirability levels partly explain the
discrepancies found between child and adult reports of anxiety in youth. Hagborg (1991) also
reported favourable findings that support the concurrent validity of the RCMAS Lie Scale as a
measure of social desirability.
Using concept mapping and confirmatory factor analysis, White and Farrell (2001) compared the
empirically derived factor structure of the RCMAS with “theory-driven models derived from 8 experts
on child anxiety” (p.333), with 898 Grade 7 children, primarily black Americans (94%). White and
Farrell (2001) report analyses that identify three-factor models with both the RCMAS and the
expert-derived model (anxious arousal, social evaluation-oversensitivity and worry). However,
empirical support for a higher order factor was only found with the expert-derived model, which
excluded items of dysphoric mood. White and Farrell (2001) argue that the RCMAS includes items
that are “related to a construct or dimension that resembles dysphoric mood” (p.336).
There are some limitations with White and Farrell’s (2001) study, including the narrow age range
(10.8 to 14.1 years), similar ethnicity of the subjects (94% African American or black), and subjects
who also report lower levels of anxiety compared to the standardised sample. Such limitations would
limit generalisability of White and Farrell’s (2001) results. However, White and Farrell (2001) also
claim that the expert-derived model can meaningfully contribute towards improving our
understanding of the assessment of anxiety using the RCMAS. White and Farrell (2001) suggest that
future research consider refining the domains assessed by the RCMAS, and possibly including
domains reflecting anxious apprehension and behavioural avoidance, as indicated by the experts.
 Convergent or Concurrent Validity:
While investigating the construct validity of the RCMAS, Reynolds (1982) also found large positive
correlations between the RCMAS and the trait measure of anxiety, the STAIC, but not with the state
measures of anxiety. These findings are consistent with earlier findings by Reynolds (1980), who found
high correlations between the RCMAS and STAIC trait (r = .85, p  .05) but not with STAIC state
measures (r = .24, p > .05).
Reynolds (1985) replicated these results with a sample of 465 gifted
children (IQ’s higher than 130), who tended to score significantly lower on
all measures of anxiety compared with normative samples. The
convergent and divergent validity of the RCMAS was assessed in relation
to measures of trait and state anxiety with the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory for Children (STAIC). Reynolds (1985) found that the RCMAS
scores correlated highly with a Trait Anxiety scale (r = .78, p < .001) but
not with a State Anxiety scale (r = .08). This would lend support for the
convergent and divergent validity of the RCMAS.
Lee, Piersel, Friedlander and Collamer (1988) examined the concurrent validity of the RCMAS with ninety
13 to 17 year olds, and found that it correlated well with a similar measure of anxiety using the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
However, Lee, Piersel and Unruh (1989) evaluated the concurrent validity of the RCMAS Physiological
subscale with parent and teacher behavioural ratings of anxiety/somatic complaints, depression and
aggression with eighty 10 to 17 year old males who had academic or behavioural problems. In contrast
to earlier (and later) findings, Lee et al (1989) found a lack of convergent and discriminant validity

6. between the RCMAS and behavioural ratings. This anomaly might reflect problems with the alternative
comparative measure used in this study, the behaviour ratings, and the different perspective of adults
and children.
Muris, Merckelbach, Mayer, van Brakel, Thissen, Moulaert and Gadget (1998) compared the Screen for
Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), the Fear Survey Schedule for Children – Revised
(FSSC-R) and the RCMAS. They found that scores on all three tests were positively related, in a
theoretically meaningful manner, and hence evidence of concurrent validity.
Muris, Merckelbach, Ollendick, King and Bogie (2002) examined the psychometric properties of six
anxiety scales to be used with children: the RCMAS; the trait anxiety version of the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC); the Fear Survey
Schedule for Children – Revised (FSSC-R); the Multidimensional Anxiety
Scale for Children (MASC); the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional
Disorders (SCARED); and the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS).
With a sample of 521 “normal adolescents” (p. 753), Muris et al (2002)
found that the childhood anxiety scales were reliable in terms of internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alphas generally well above .60). Convergent
validity was indicated by the substantial correlations between the anxiety
scores on the six questionnaires. Particularly strong correlations were
found between the RCMAS and the STAIC (r = 0.88), and between the
RCMAS and the SCARED (r = 0.85), which would suggest that they are
likely to be tapping highly similar or the same construct(s). Correlations
between the RCMAS and the FSSC-R were said to be moderate (r = 0.63),
with suggestions that the FSSC-R was tapping slightly different aspects of
anxiety (such as specific fears and phobias).
Muris et al (2002) found that the RCMAS, the STAIC, the SCARED and
the SCAB all correlated highly with an index of depression (CDI), (r ‘s in
the .70 range), and slightly less correlations between the CDI and the
other two anxiety measures, the FSSC-R and the MASC. This would be
indicative of considerable overlap between anxiety, as indexed by these
measures of anxiety and depression. However, the correlations between
the six anxiety scales in Muris et al’s (2002) study were higher than the
correlations between the anxiety scales and the depression measure,
which “underlines the divergent validity of the childhood anxiety
measures” (p.767).
Muris et al (2002) conclude that the six questionnaires all have
satisfactory psychometric properties. The only differentiating factor
between the new and old anxiety scales might be the new scales’ closer
links with the DSM diagnostic system, which could assist clinical
communications about anxiety problems with children (citing Chorpita,
Yim, Moffit, Umemoto and Francis, 2000).
 Discriminant Validity:

7. Reynolds and Richmond (1978) note that “evidence of discriminant validity will be necessary for the
revised instrument” but that it was not yet available (p.278).
Mattison, Bagnato and Brubaker (1988) studied the clinical relevance of the RCMAS as a tool used to
discriminate between children with a DSM-III anxiety disorder and other DSM-III psychiatric diagnoses.
They found that the RCMAS Worry/Oversensitivity subfactor of the Anxiety Scale can significantly
discriminate between those children who have a diagnosable anxiety disorder and those children who do
not have an anxiety disorder. The use of the RCMAS was recommended by Mattison, Bagnato and
Brubaker (1988) as part a multi-method of assessment for identifying children with anxiety disorders.
Accordingly, the RCMAS could be considered useful as a diagnostic tool and for screening those children
who may be in need of counselling.
Perrin and Last (1992) compared discriminant validity of the RCMAS, the Modified State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory for Children (STAIC -M) and the Fear Survey Schedule for Children – Revised (FSSC-R). With
their sample of 213 youth, Perrin and Last (1992) found that the FSSC-R could not discriminate but the
RCMAS and the STAIC -M could distinguish between youth who had never been given a psychiatric
diagnosis and those who had a diagnosis. The discriminate failure with FSSC -R may reflect anomalies
noted with the FSSC-R in Muris et al’s (2002) study, in particular, that the FSSC -R may be tapping into
slightly different aspects of anxiety. Furthermore, while the RCMAS and STAIC -M could distinguish
between who had a diagnosable problem and those who did not, they could not distinguish between who
had a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This would
indicate the need for some caution and the importance of the RCMAS being used as part of a clinical
assessment.
Dierker, Albano, Clarke, Heimberg, Kendall, Merikangas, Lewinsohn, Offord, Kessler and Kupfer (2001)
examined the disrciminative accuracy of three rating scales for detecting anxiety and depression with
children (the RCMAS; the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale or CES-D; and the
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children or MASC). Scores with the three scales were compared with
diagnostic interviews for 632 youth. The MASC scores were said to be “most strongly associated” with
individual anxiety disorders, and the CES-D composite score was linked with a diagnosis of a major
depression, while the RCMAS was said to be the least successful tool for discriminating between anxiety
and depression.
Stark and Laurent’s (2001) used a joint factor analysis with the RCMAS and the Children’s Depression
Inventory (CDI) to identify which items uniquely identified depression and anxiety with 750 children in
Grades 4 to 7. Stark and Laurent (2001) identified an abbreviated version of the scales (with nine
unique depression items and seven unique anxiety items, which was validated with a separate sample of
131 students. Stark and Laurent (2001) also suggested the need to explore alternative ways to score
the RCMAS and CDI to eliminate potential problems with overlapping items.
The results of research by Perrin and Last (1992), Dierker et al (2001) and Stark and Laurent (2001)
indicate the need for caution and further research with respect to the discriminant validity of the RCMAS
to distinguish between anxiety and depression in children. It may be as White and Farrell (2001)
suggest, the RCMAS needs further refinement and possibly the exclusion of items which relate to
dysphoric mood or items which tap into depression.
 Criterion (or Predictive) Validity:
Hadwin, Frost, French and Richards (1997) found in a sample of 40 children aged 7 to 9 years, that
levels of anxiety as measured by the RCMAS, could significantly predict the children’s interpretations of
ambiguous stimuli as threatening.
Stallard, Velleman, Langsford and Baldwin (2001) conducted a univariate
analysis of variance to determine whether the number of coping
strategies used by children involved in everyday traffic accidents was
affected by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the child’s age or
gender, the presence of depression in the child, or the presence of
anxiety in the child (as measured by the RCMAS). They found that only
the child’s age and PTSD were significantly linked to the number of coping
strategies used, not anxiety. A logistic regression analysis also found that

8. anxiety measured by the RCMAS was not predictive of PTSD at six-weeks
post accident. Gender was found to be independently predictive of PTSD.
Future research might consider the predictive validity of anxiety, as measured by the RCMAS, on
academic achievement. Gaudry and Spielberger (1971) found a negative relationship between anxiety
and academic achievement, but it seems performance and achievement has a more complex relationship
with anxiety. There is also the interactive effect of intelligence to be considered when making any
predictions about academic or vocational success.
Another consideration for future investigations would be the interactive effect of anxiety and group
membership (such as ethnicity or gender) when predicting behavioural problems or future adjustment in
children.
ADMINISTRATION:
The RCMAS is suitable for individual or group administration, by clinicians,
researchers or teachers, with 6 to 19 year old children. The scale is best
read out to children in Grades one and two (or to children who have an
equivalent reading age). Grade three and older children need to be
monitored carefully as they read the items themselves, with explanations
given for words that they do not understand.
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) advocate for the use of the RCMAS with children in Grades three to
twelve, and more tentatively (“probably satisfactory”, p. 279), for Grades one and two, or with children
functioning intellectually in that lower range.
Caution is recommended for the younger children because of the relatively higher Lie Scale scores
(Reynolds and Richmond, 1978). Reynolds, Bradley and Steele (1980) found that the younger age group
understand and respond reliably when the items are read to them.
SCORING METHOD AND INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS:
Each item is given a score of one for a “yes” response, yielding a Total Anxiety score (A g). Three
empirically derived Anxiety Subscales scores (Physiological Anxiety, Worry/Oversensitivity, and Social
Concerns/Concentration) and Lie Scale scores can be calculated. The Lie scale is best thought of as a
social desirability scale as it does not directly and conclusively detect “lying”.
Stallard, Velleman, Langsford and Baldwin (2001) recommend that an
overall cut-off point of 19 out of 28 be used to identify children
experiencing clinically significant levels of anxiety (p.200).
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) suggest that scores within one standard deviation of the mean, at the
appropriate grade level, be used to indicate scoring within the normal range of variability (see below for
norms of means and standard deviations or sources for norms).
Scores falling at least one standard deviation from the mean (T  60) are thought to be of clinical
interest. However, T-scores above 70 should be interpreted with caution. The child’s response pattern
should be examined with respect to a problematic pattern of endorsement or reading difficulties.
High scores on the sub-scales can represent different aspects of anxiety, which can be used to develop
hypotheses about the origin and nature of a child’s anxiety.

9. (1) High scores on the Physiological Factor (items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25, 29, 33) can indicate
physiological signs of anxiety (eg sweaty hands, stomach aches).
(2) High scores on the Worry/Oversensitivity Factor (items 2, 6, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 37)
would suggest that the child internalises their experiences of anxiety and that he or she may
feel overwhelmed and withdraw.
(3) High scores on the Concentration Anxiety Factor (items 3, 11, 15,
23, 27, 31, 35) would suggest that the child is likely to feel that he
or she is unable to meet the expectations of other important people,
inadequate and unable to concentrate on tasks.
NORMS:
 Standardisation:
Standardisation sample populations for the RCMAS are thought to be
large, diverse and representative.
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) computed means and standard
deviations (SD) for 329 school age children., who were all tested on
the same day. The researchers were not given permission to collect
data about the socio-economic status of the children, but to ensure
representation of the sample, there was random selection of classes at
each grade level from an urban school district. However, Reynolds and
Richmond (1978) also note the need for further study to determine the
generalizability of the instrument to other populations.
Reynolds and Paget (1981) tested 4,972 children, aged six to nineteen
years, from thirteen different states in the USA and eighty school
districts. While socio-economic data was also not available to Reynolds
and Paget (1981), they argued that their sample was representative of
cross-section of the school attending population because rural and
urban areas were equally represented, including inner city and high
poverty districts; and specific neighbourhoods with “known SES
composition to ensure the representative nature of the sample”
(p.353).
Reynolds and Paget (1983) also note that the 4,972 children aged 6 to
19 years, from thirteen states in the USA, are representative of all
geographic regions in the USA. From the data, Reynolds and Paget
(1983) established separate norms for gender, race and age for the
three Anxiety subscales, the two Lie Scales and the total Anxiety Scale.
Using the method of rolling weighted averages standard score
distributions were derived from the raw score distributions, whereby a
Total Anxiety score becomes a T-score with a mean of 50 and a

10. standard deviation of 10. The subscale scores have a mean of 10 and
standard deviations of 3.
 Means and Standard Deviations - Sources:
(1) Mertin, Dibnah, Crosbie & Bulkeley (2001)
– British Sample (8 to 12 year olds)
Mertin, Dibnah, Crosbie and Bulkeley (2001) questioned the applicability of North American norms with
the RCMAS to a British population. By computing means by age and gender, for 575 English children
aged 8 to 12 years, Mertin et al (2001) found that eight year old English girls were less anxious than
their North American equivalent; and that most English males were less anxious than their North
American equivalent. Mertin et al (2001) also note language differences and advise that the RCMAS be
used as part of a structured interview rather than as a self-report questionnaire.
(2) Reynolds and Paget (1981; 1983)
– North American Sample (6 to 19 year olds)
(3) Reynolds, Bradley & Steele (1980)
- Preliminary Norms North American Sample (kindergarten age
(4) Reynolds and Richmond (1978)
– North American sample (6 to 19 year olds)
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) data:
The Anxiety Scale Mean = 13.84 SD = 5.79
The Lie Scale Mean = 3.56 SD = 2.37
Reynolds and Richmond (1978) suggest that scores within one standard deviation of the mean, at the
appropriate grade level, be used to indicate scoring within the normal range of variability. Reynolds and
Richmond (1978, p.276) also note that the Anxiety scale correlated significantly with the Lie
scale, r(327) = .15; p  .01.
Means and SD were also obtained for the RCMAS by Grade, Race and Gender (Reynolds and Richmond,
1978, Tables II and III, pp. 276-277):
Anxiety Scale Lie Scale
Mean SD N Mean SD
Grade
1 13.70 4.85 23 6.00 1.95
2 16.13 6.42 30 4.63 2.55

11. 3 12.78 6.50 32 3.97 2.18
4 16.64 5.70 28 2.25 1.65
5 12.52 5.33 33 2.70 2.47
5 13.82 5.28 28 4.18 2.04
6 11.85 5.27 26 1.93 1.67
8 14.50 5.22 30 2.57 1.87
9 13.25 6.27 40 3.70 1.84
10 13.23 5.85 22 3.68 2.48
11 13.96 5.87 28 3.68 2.75
12 13.67 4.58 9 4.33 2.29
Gender
Females 14.97 5.60 173 3.66 2.
45
Males 12.58 5.75 156 3.45 2.
28
Race
Blacks 14.09 5.30 172 4.02 2.
09
Whites 13.56 6.29 157 3.06
2.56
With the Anxiety Scale and the Lie Scale, Reynolds and Richmond
(1978) computed a three way ANOVA for grade, race and gender, and
submitted the variances to separate F tests. With the Anxiety Scale, no
significant effect was found for grade or race, but females scored
significantly higher than males (F (1,283) = 10.87; p  .001), (p277).
This may reflect speculation that females more readily admit to anxiety
than males (Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite and Ruebush, 1960,
cited in Reynolds and Richmond , 1978). It was also consistent with
previous research using the CMAS (Bledsoe, 1973, cited in Reynolds
and Richmond, 1978).
With the Lie Scale, there was no significant effect with gender in the Reynolds and Richmond (1978)
sample, but blacks reportedly scored significantly higher than whites on the Lie Scale , for which

12. there was no explanation. Grade anomalies were also noted. With the exception of Grades two and
twelve, Grade one children scored significantly higher than all other grade children (Duncan’s
multiple range test procedure, p  .05); and with the exception of Grades five
and eight, Grades seven and four scored significantly lower scores than
all other grade children (p  .05), (p278). Reynolds and Richmond
(1978) suggest that Grade variations in the Lie Scale may reflect the
unique characteristics of the population, or an indication of
defensiveness or social desirability, especially with younger children.
Hence, while a high Lie score of six or more may invalidate a high
Anxiety score, it might also provide clinical information about the
child’s response style, or personality characteristics. This would be true
for most lie scales.
 Cross Cultural Validity:
Studies of cross-cultural validity of the RCMAS have tended to focus on issues of validity with respect to
gender and ethnicity. Reynolds, Plake and Harding (1983) found that the RCMAS does contain some
potentially biased items in terms of different gender and race response, but the difference was not
clinically significant. Reynolds and Paget (1981)demonstrated equivalence with the factor structure for
different genders and race.
Wilson, Chibaiwa, Majoni, Masukume and Nkoma (1990) found that the RCMAS was a modestly reliable
measure with 961 Zimbabwe children but a factor analysis failed to establish the validity of the RCMAS
as a diagnostic or research tool with Zimbabwe children.
Boyd, Kostanski, Gullone, Ollendick and Shek (2000) looked at the prevalence of anxiety and depression
in 1,299 adolescents in Melbourne using the RCMAS and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale and
found “striking differences” (p.479) between the prevalence in different countries, which might have
implications for the use of norms from different countries. Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety
in Britain, Canada and the United States were considered to be “similar” or comparative, with
comparative rates in Asian countries but the highest rates of anxiety and depression were found in
Eastern European countries. Australian data, which identified rates 14.2% of adolescents being
depressed and 13.2% being anxious, were said to be comparable with Canada and Hong Kong.
Boyd et al’s (2000) results would tend to lend support to use of the North American and British
normative data with Australian children, but the ethnic background of the child might also nee d to be
considered.
REFERENCES:
American Psychological Association (APA) (1954) Technical
Recommendations for psychological Tests and Diagnostic
Techniques (Washington, APA)
Allison, D.E. (1970) “Test Anxiety, stress and intelligence-test
performance”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, vol. 2(11), pp.
26-37, cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).

13. Bledsoe, J.C. (1973) “Sex and grade differences in children’s manifest
anxiety”, Psychological Reports, vol. 32, pp. 285-286, cited in Reynolds
and Richmond (1978).
Boyd, C.P.; Kostanski, M.; Gullone, E.; Ollendick, T.H.; and Shek, D.T.L.
(2000) “Prevalence of anxiety and depression in Australian Adolescents;
Comparisons with worldwide data”, Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol.
161(4), pp. 479-492.
Castaneda, A.; McCandless, B.R.; and Palermo, D.S. (1956) “The
children’s form of the manifest anxiety scale, Child Development, vol.
27(3), pp.317-326, cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).
Cattell, R.B. (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioural
and life sciences, (New York, Plenum Press), cited in Reynolds and Paget
(1981).
Chorpita, B.F.; Yim, L.; Moffit, C.; Umemoto, L.A.; and Francis, S.E.
(2000) assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in
children: A revised child anxiety and depression scale”, Behaviour
Research and Therapy, vol. 38, pp. 835-855, cited in Muris et al, 2002.
Cronbach, L. (1951) “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests, Psychometrika, vol. 16, pp297-334, cited in Gerard and Reynolds,
1999.
Dadds, M.R.; Perrin, S.; and Yule, W. (1998) “Social desirability and self-
reported anxiety in children: An analysis of the RCMAS Lie Scale”, Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 26(4), pp. 311-317.
Devilly, G.J. and Sanders, M.R. (1993) “Hey dad, Watch Me: The Effects
of Training a Child to Teach Pain Management Skills to a Parent with
Recurrent Headaches”, Behaviour Change, vol. 10(4), pp. 237-243.
Dierker, L.C.; Albano, A.M.; Clarke, G.N.; Heimberg, R.G.; Kendal, P.C.;
Merikangas, K.R.; Lewinsohn, P.M.; Offord, D.R.; Kessler, R.; and Kupfer,
D.J. (2001), “Screening for anxiety and Depression in early
Adolescence”, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, vol. 40(8), pp. 929-936.
Finch, A.J.; Montgomery, L.E. and Deardoff, P.A. (1974) “Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale with
emotionally disturbed children”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 34, p.68, cited in Reynolds and Richmond
(1978).
Flannigan, P.J.; Peters, C.J. and Conry, J.L. (1969) “Item analysis of the Children’s Manife st Anxiety
Scale with the retarded”, Journal of Educational Research, vol. 62(10), pp. 472-477, cited in Reynolds
and Richmond (1978).
Gaudry, E.; and Spielberger, D. (1971) Anxiety and Educational
Achievement, (Sydney, Wiley), cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).

14. Gerard, A.B.; and Reynolds, C.R. (1999) “Characteristics and applications
of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, in Maruish, M.E.
(ed.) The use of psychological testing for treatment and planning and
outcomes assessment (2nd edition, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), pp. 323-340.
Guilford, J.P. (1954) Psychometric Methods (2nd
edition, New York, McGraw-Hill), cited in Reynolds and
Richmond (1978).
Hadwin, J.; Frost, S.; French, C.C.; and Richards, A. (1997) “Cognitive
processing and trait anxiety in typically developing children: Evidence for
an Interpretation Bias”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 106(3), pp.
486-490.
Hagborg, W.J. (1991) “The revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale and
Social Desirability”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 51
(2), pp423-427.
Harman, H.H. (1976) Modern Factor Analysis, (2nd edition, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press), cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Kitano, H.L. (1960) “Validity of the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale and the modified revised California
inventory”, Child Development, vol. 31, pp. 67-72, cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).
Lee, S.W.; Piersel, W.C.; and Unruh, L. (1989) “Concurrent Validity of the
Psychological subscale of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: A
multitrait-multimethod analysis”, Journal of Psychological Assessment,
vol. 7(3), pp. 246-254.
Lee, S.W.; Piersel, W.C.; Friedlander, R.; and Collamer, W. (1988)
“Concurrent Validity of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS) for adolescents”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 48(2), pp. 429-433.
Mattison, R.E.; Bagnato, S.J.; and Brubaker, B.H. (1988) “Diagnostic
utility of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale” in children with
DSM-III anxiety disorders”, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, vol 2(2), pp.
147-155.
Mertin, P.; Dibnah, C.; Crosbie, V.; and Bulkeley, R. (2001) “Using North
American instruments with British samples: Norms for the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale in the UK”, Child Psychology and
Psychiatry Review, vol. 6(3), pp. 121-126.
Mulaik, S.A. (1971) The foundations of factor analysis, (New York,
McGraw-Hill), cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Muris, P.; Merckelbach, H.; Ollendick, T.; King, N.; and Bogie, N. (2002)
“Three traditional and three new childhood anxiety questionnaires: their

15. reliability and validity in a normal adolescent sample”, Behaviour
Research and Therapy, vol. 40(7), pp 753-772.
Muris, P.; Merckelbach, H.; Mayer, B.; van Brakel, A.; Thissen, S.;
Moulaert, V.; and Gadet, B. (1998) “The screen for Child Anxiety Related
Emotional Disorders (SCARED) and traditional childhood anxiety
measures”, Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,
vol. 29(4), pp.327-339.
Perrin, S.; and Last, C.G. (1992) “Do childhood anxiety measures
measure anxiety”, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 20(6), pp.
567-578.
Pina, A.A.; Silverman, W.K.; Saavedra, L.M.; and Weems, C.F. (2001) “An
analysis of the RCMAS lie scale in a clinic sample of anxious
children”, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, vol. 15(5), pp. 443-457.
Reynolds, C.R. (1980) “Concurrent validity of What I Think and Feel: the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, vol. 48(6), pp. 774-775.
Reynolds, C.R. (1981) “Long-term stability of scores on the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol.
53(3), pp. 702.
Reynolds, C.R. (1985) “Multitrait validation of the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale for children of high intelligence”, Psychological
Reports, vol. 56(2), pp. 402
Reynolds, C.R. (1982) “Convergent and divergent validity of the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, vol. 42(4), pp. 1205-1212.
Reynolds, C.R.; Bradley, M.; and Steele, C. (1980) “Preliminary norms and technical data for use of the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale with kindergarten children”, Psychology in the Schools, vol.
17, pp. 163-167, cited in Reynolds and Paget (1981).
Reynolds, C.R. and Paget, K.D. (1981) “Factor Analysis of the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale for Blacks, Whites, Males and Females
with a National Normative Sample”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, vol. 49(3), pp. 352-359.
Reynolds, C.R. and Paget, K.D. (1983) “National normative and reliability data for the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale”, School Psychology Review, vol. 12(3), pp324-336.
Reynolds, C.R., Plake, B.S. and Harding, R.E. (1983) “Item bias in the
assessment of children’s anxiety: Race and Sex interactions on items on
the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal of

16. Psychoeducational Assessment, vol. 1, pp 135-142, cited in Gerard and
Reynolds, 1999.
Reynolds, C.R. and Richmond, B.O. (1978) “What I think and Feel: A
Revised Measure of Children’s Manifest Anxiety”, Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, vol. 6(2), pp. 271-280.
Reynolds, C.R. and Richmond, B.O. (1979) “Factor Structure and
Construct Validity of “what I think and Feel”: The Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 43, pp.
281-283.
Sarason, S.B.; Davidson, K.S.; Lighthall, F.F.; Waite, R.R.; and Ruebush,
B.K. (1960), Anxiety in elementary school children, (New York, Wiley),
cited in Reynolds and Richmond , 1978.
Stark, K.D.; and Laurent, J. (2001) “Joint factor analysis of the Children’s
Depression Inventory and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale”, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 30(4), pp. 552-567.
Stellard, P.; Velleman, R.; Langsford, J. and Baldwin, S. (2001) “Coping
and psychological distress in children involved in road traffic
accidents”, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 40, pp. 197-208.
Taylor, J.A. (1951) “The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned eyelid
response”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 183-188,
cited in Reynolds and Richmond (1978).
White, K.S.; and Farrell, A.D. (2001) “Structure of anxiety symptoms in
urban children: Competing factor models of the revised children’s
manifest anxiety scale”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol.
69(2), pp. 333-337.
Wilson, D.; Chibaiwa, D.; Majoni, C.; Masukume, C.; Nkoma, E. (2002)
“Reliability and factorial validity of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale in Zimbabwe”, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 11(4),
pp. 365-369.
Wisniewski, J.J.; Jack, J.; Mulick, J.A.; Genshaft, J.L.; and Coury, D.L.
(1987) “Test-Retest reliability of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 65(1), pp.67-70.
The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale

17. (RCMAS)
“What I think and Feel”
Read each question carefully. Put a circle around the word YES if you think it is true about you. Put a
circle around the word NO if you think it is not true about you
1. I have trouble making up my
mind. Yes / No
2. I get nervous when things do not go the right way for
me. Yes / No
3. Others seem to do things easier than I
can. Yes / No
4. I like everyone I
know. Yes / No
5. Often I have trouble getting my
breath. Yes / No
6. I worry a lot of the
time. Yes / No
7. I am afraid of a lot of
things. Yes / No
8. I am always
kind. Yes / No
9. I get mad
easily. Yes / No
10. I worry about what my parents will say to
me. Yes / No
11. I feel that others do not like the way I do
things. Yes / No
12. I always have good
manners. Yes / No
13. It is hard for me to get to sleep at
night. Yes / No

18. 14. I worry about what other people think about
me. Yes / No
15. I feel alone even when there are people with
me. Yes / No
16. I am always
good. Yes / No
17. Often I feel sick in the
stomach. Yes / No
18. My feelings get hurt
easily. Yes / No
19. My hands feel
sweaty. Yes / No
20. I am always nice to
everyone. Yes / No
21. I am tired a
lot. Yes / No
22. I worry about what is going to
happen. Yes / No
23. Other children are happier than I
am. Yes / No
24. I tell the truth every single
time. Yes / No
25. I have bad
dreams. Yes / No
26. My feelings get hurt easily when I am fussed
at. Yes / No
27. I feel someone will tell me I do things the wrong
way. Yes / No
28. I never get
angry. Yes / No
29. I wake up scared some of the
time. Yes / No

19. 30. I worry when I go to bed at
night. Yes / No
31. It is hard for me to keep my mind on my
schoolwork. Yes / No
32. I never say things that I
shouldn’t. Yes / No
33. I wriggle in my seat a
lot. Yes / No
34. I am
nervous. Yes /
No
35. A lot of people are against
me. Yes / No
36. I never
lie. Yes / No
37. I often worry about something bad happening to
me. Yes / No
Above written by: Ms. Sharon Gilroy
Reviewed and edited by: Dr. Grant J. Devilly