Evidence of external, discriminating and diagnostic validity of Multidimensional Anxiety Scale (EMA).

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze the evidence of external, discriminant and diagnostic validity of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale (EMA; Díaz Kuaik & de la Iglesia, 2017). A sample of 177 subjects between 18 and 78 years old participated, of which 68.9% belonged to the general population and 31.1% to the clinical population. External validity was examined through a concurrent study with STAI-R and ISRA and a study by contrasting groups. The correlations found between the different scales mentioned allow EMA to be considered as a good substitute for these, which provides new information to that obtained by said external criteria (r=.80 and .75, p<.001). The differences in anxiety levels found between the clinical and general sample (p<.001) show the EMA's ability to discriminate between both populations. The diagnostic validity was determined using the ISRA as a reference criterion at three cut-off points that differentiate different levels of anxiety, reporting a significant agreement between these (p<.005). The discriminant validity was examined through a correlational study with the BDI-II. The results were consistent with those found in other measures of anxiety (r=.74, p<.001), which raises the need to review the validity of these constructs. The accumulated evidence allows us to conclude that the EMA has adequate external validity evidence to be used as an updated and multidimensional measure of anxiety. It also offers tentative cut points to differentiate different levels of anxiety.