The adaptation and preliminary psychometric properties of the Derived Chemistry Anxiety Rating Scale

Abstract

The current study adapted the Derived Chemistry Anxiety Rating Scale (DCARS) into Turkish and investigated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Turkish version. The Turkish DCARS is composed of three components, which are derived from 32 Likert-type items that purport to measure anxiety experienced in chemistry-related situations. In the adaptation procedure, English–Turkish conformity, Turkish language conformity and understandability, and back translation were used. In the preliminary psychometric investigation, structural validity, content validity, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability were examined. Results show that item translations have high conformity with the original items and experts found the Turkish items understandable. Validity analyses confirmed the adapted scale's three-factor structure. In addition, concurrent validity was evidenced by significant positive correlation coefficients between the scale scores and the test anxiety and state-trait anxiety scores. Reliability analyses indicate high consistency among the scale items both at the total and sub-scale levels and that scale and subscale scores were stable over time. We conclude that the Turkish DCARS is a promising assessment instrument in measuring chemistry anxiety levels among Turkish college students.

---

Even though cognitive factors play a significant role in learning, the effect of affective factors has also become more evident in recent years (Azizoglu and Uzuntiryaki, 2006). One of such factors is anxiety, which has long been the subject of psychology. In recent years, anxiety has become the focus of many different fields such as economics, mathematics, and chemistry. Spielberger (1972) defines anxiety as observable reactions that are triggered by such unpleasant emotions as worry and tension. In general, studies show that higher levels of anxiety may have negative effects on learning and/or achievement (Spielberger, 1966). Similarly, research studies show that higher levels of chemistry anxiety negatively affect success in chemistry courses (i.e., Abendroth and Friedman, 1983; Spielberger, 1966; Eddy, 2000).

Eddy (2000) defines chemistry phobia (or chemistry anxiety) as “the fear of chemicals and the fear of chemistry as a course” (p. 514). Chemistry is regarded as a difficult subject by many; but at the same time, it takes an important place in middle and high school curriculum and many college degree programs require chemistry courses. Therefore, researchers have attempted to develop instruments to assess the levels of chemistry anxiety (i.e., Abendroth and Friedman, 1983; Eddy, 1996; Wells, 2003; Yucel, 2008) and tested out activities as an attempt to reduce the levels of chemistry anxiety (e.g., Abendroth and Friedman, 1983; Ellis, 1993; Billington et al., 2008).

Based on Spielberger's (1972) definition of anxiety, Richardson and Suinn (1972) developed the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS), as a measure of anxiety that is “associated with the single area of the manipulation of numbers and the use of mathematics concepts” (p. 551). The validity and reliability of the MARS have been studied extensively throughout the years (i.e., Richardson and Suinn, 1972; Brush, 1976, 1978; Rounds and Hendel, 1980; Resnick et al., 1982; Suinn and Edwards, 1982; Strawderman, 1985). Ten years later, Plake and Parker (1982) developed the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale-Revised (RMARS) by reducing the 98 MARS items to 24 items. Finally, the Derived Chemistry Anxiety Rating Scale (DCARS) was developed by modifying some of the items of the RMARS for chemistry and generating a few new items (Eddy, 1996).

The DCARS consists of 36 Likert-type items under three components (i.e., learning chemistry anxiety, chemistry evaluation anxiety, and handling chemicals anxiety). The learning chemistry anxiety subscale includes items such as “watching a teacher work a chemistry problem on the blackboard” or “walking into a chemistry class” which purport to measure difficulties experienced in learning chemistry. The chemistry evaluation anxiety subscale includes items such as “thinking about an upcoming chemistry test one day before” or “solving a difficult problem on a chemistry test” and aims to measure anxiety experiences under chemistry-related examination conditions. The handling chemicals anxiety subscale includes items such as “spilling a chemical” or “working with acids in the laboratory” which concentrate on anxiety experienced in working with chemicals. Of the three components, the first and second components are similar to the components of the RMARS but handling chemicals anxiety component is developed unique to the DCARS.

The psychometric properties of the DCARS (i.e., validity and reliability) initially studied by Eddy (1996). He studied the structural validity of the scale and confirmed the aforementioned three subscales. In the same study, the DCARS was studied in relation to the RMARS (Plake and Parker, 1982) and trait anxiety scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1983). Results showed statistically significant correlation coefficients between the DCARS and both RMARS and trait anxiety, which evidenced the scale's concurrent validity. In addition, the DCARS items showed high levels of reliability indicated by Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all the three subscales (Eddy, 1996).

A review of the literature revealed that there is no available measurement instrument to assess the levels of chemistry anxiety for Turkish college students. Therefore, the present study aimed to adapt the DCARS into Turkish and study the initial psychometric properties of the Turkish version among college students.

Method

Sample

Eight different groups participated in the study from the translation to the psychometric evaluation stage. Descriptive information about these groups is as follows:

Translation. In the first phase of the study, original scale items were translated into Turkish by four independent experts who were native Turkish speakers. Of the experts, two completed doctoral degrees in the United States and the other two had English proficiency as evidenced by the State Language Proficiency Examination.

English–Turkish conformity. Translated items were compared with the original items. A total of 20 bilingual experts participated in this phase. Of these experts, all were native in Turkish and 9 were faculty members teaching English courses at universities, 2 were faculty members who completed their degrees at universities where the medium of education was English, and 9 were faculty members who completed their graduate studies in the United States and/or United Kingdom.

Turkish language conformity. Translated items were evaluated in terms of grammar and understandability by 68 Turkish language experts. Of the experts, 4 were faculty members from Turkish departments and the rest were the graduates of Turkish language and literature.

Back translation. Translated items were back translated into English. Three experts participated in this phase. All three experts had higher levels of English proficiency as evidenced by the State Language Proficiency Exam.

Original English and back-translated English conformity. After back translation, items were compared with the corresponding original item. A total of 8 English language experts participated in this phase. All the experts were faculty members in English language and literature.

Content validity. Experts rated the degree to which scale items measure the construct of chemistry anxiety. A total of 12 experts participated in this phase, 7 of whom were faculty members from the departments of chemistry and 5 were faculty members from the departments of counseling.

Language equivalency. The DCARS was administered to a group of bilingual students twice. First, students responded to the Turkish version and after a month they completed the same scale in its original English version. Thirty bilingual college students who were enrolled in chemistry courses where the medium of instruction was English participated in this phase.

The psychometric properties of the Turkish version. At the final stage of the study, the Turkish version of the DCARS, Test Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1980), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1983) were administered to 936 college students who were enrolled in college chemistry courses. Of the students, 432 were from the colleges of science and 504 were from the colleges of education. Of the students, 432 were freshmen, 195 were sophomores, 204 were juniors, and 78 were seniors. In terms of gender, there were 351 men and 558 women in the sample. Twenty-seven students did not indicate their gender and college levels.

Procedure

First, a written permission to translate and adapt the scale into Turkish was obtained from the developer. Next, four independent experts translated the items into Turkish and the researchers compared and contrasted these translations to come up with the initial Turkish item pool. A group of bilingual experts independently rated the conformity of each Turkish item with its original English counterpart. Experts also noted their suggestions along with their ratings in case they found an item insufficient. Such suggestions (if any) were taken into account by the researchers while generating the initial Turkish item pool.

In the third step, Turkish language experts rated the initial Turkish items in terms of grammar and understandability and noted their suggestions along with their ratings in case they thought that an item had problems with Turkish grammar and/or was difficult to understand. Such suggestions were taken into account by the researchers while generating the final Turkish item pool. The final Turkish item pool was translated back to English by another independent group of experts. Finally, 8 language experts rated the conformity of the original items with the back-translated items.

Thirty bilingual college students who were enrolled in chemistry courses first responded to the original English items. After a one-month interval, they completed the Turkish items. Before the administration, human subjects clearance was obtained. Students were informed that participation was voluntary and that they were free to opt out of the process any time during the study without prejudice. Both bilingual and Turkish only students signed a consent form, written in Turkish, before participating in the study. No student refused to participate. No bonus was given for participation. The responses of this group were analyzed by paired samples t-test.

The psychometric properties of the Turkish version (i.e., multidimensional factor structure, content validity, concurrent validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability) were studied in the final stage of the study. Structural validity was tested by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Concurrent validity was studied by correlating the total and subscale scores of the DCARS with the scores of the Test Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The ratings of chemistry and counseling experts of the degree to which scale items measure the construct of chemistry anxiety are used as the initial evidence of the scale's content validity. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for the total and subscale scores. Test-retest administrations were done in a one-month interval.

Results

English–Turkish conformity

Twenty bilingual experts independently rated the conformity of each of the 36 Turkish items with their original English counterparts on a scale of 0–10, where higher scores indicated higher levels of conformity. For example, experts' ratings of item 5 ranged between 8 and 10 (out of 10) with a mean of 9.40 (sd = 0.88). Table 1 shows that the rating means range from 8.32 (item 4) to 10.00 (item 18). The mean of means (i.e., grand mean) was calculated by taking all the means for all the items and was found to be 9.35 (sd = 0.37). These results indicate higher levels of conformity between the English items and their Turkish translations. Also shown in Table 1 are skewness and kurtosis values on the means, which do not indicate any deviation from normality.

Table 1 English–Turkish conformity mean and standard deviation scores (n = 20)

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Item	Mean	Standard deviation
1	9.06	1.34	19	9.75	0.55
2	9.50	1.46	20	8.75	1.33
3	9.65	0.93	21	9.53	1.17
4	8.32	1.88	22	9.40	1.66
5	9.40	0.88	23	9.79	0.53
6	8.90	1.68	24	9.58	1.21
7	8.95	1.31	25	9.74	0.56
8	8.74	1.55	26	9.47	1.17
9	9.45	0.68	27	9.42	1.34
10	8.80	1.57	28	9.26	1.14
11	9.55	0.60	29	9.63	1.01
12	8.95	1.93	30	9.53	0.84
13	9.10	1.48	31	9.26	1.04
14	9.65	0.93	32	9.47	1.12
15	9.05	1.14	33	9.68	0.82
16	9.74	0.93	34	8.95	1.39
17	9.68	0.58	35	9.63	0.49
18	10.00	0.00	36	9.37	0.95
Skewness	−0.59	Std. error	0.51	z-value	−1.16
Kurtosis	1.05	Std. error	0.99	z-value	1.06

---

Turkish language conformity

Turkish items were rated for grammar conformity and understandability by 68 Turkish language experts on a scale of 0–10, where higher scores indicated higher levels of conformity with the Turkish language. Table 2 shows that rating means range from 6.22 to 9.45. On average, the lowest conformity was on item 11 (mean = 6.22, sd = 3.24) and the highest was on item 3 (mean = 9.24, sd = 1.74). The grand mean was calculated to be 8.15 (sd = 0.79), which indicates that Turkish items all together have high levels of conformity with the Turkish grammar. Also shown in Table 2 are skewness and kurtosis values on the means, which do not indicate any deviation from normality.

Table 2 Turkish language conformity mean and standard deviation scores (n = 68)

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Item	Mean	Standard deviation
1	7.33	2.87	19	8.18	2.13
2	8.76	1.92	20	8.31	2.10
3	9.24	1.74	21	8.04	2.48
4	6.42	2.88	22	7.94	2.44
5	8.01	2.68	23	8.51	2.36
6	9.45	1.07	24	8.48	1.82
7	8.62	2.30	25	6.79	3.71
8	9.04	1.79	26	7.15	3.14
9	8.76	2.07	27	7.56	2.81
10	8.18	2.28	28	8.07	2.67
11	6.22	3.24	29	6.57	3.67
12	9.18	1.78	30	8.73	1.95
13	8.27	2.37	31	7.71	2.93
14	8.49	2.07	32	9.06	1.64
15	8.12	2.39	33	8.31	2.54
16	9.00	2.50	34	8.43	2.44
17	7.55	2.88	35	8.37	2.46
18	8.00	2.52	36	8.58	2.42
Skewness	−0.51	Std. error	0.30	z-value	−1.71
Kurtosis	−0.87	Std. error	0.58	z-value	−1.50

---

Original English and back-translated English item conformity

Turkish items were translated back to English and the conformity of the original English and back-translated items was investigated on a scale of 0–10, where higher scores indicated higher levels of conformity. Table 3 shows that the rating mean scores range from 5.50 to 9.63. The grand mean was calculated to be 8.30 (sd = 1.06) and indicates higher levels of conformity. Item 7, which received the lowest mean rating, was improved by integrating the experts' suggestions. Also shown in Table 3 are skewness and kurtosis values, which do not indicate significant deviations from normality.

Table 3 Original English and back-translated English item conformity mean and standard deviation scores (n = 8)

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Item	Mean	Standard deviation
1	9.63	0.74	19	8.50	2.00
2	9.25	0.88	20	7.25	3.32
3	9.13	1.72	21	9.25	1.03
4	7.14	3.57	22	7.57	2.63
5	9.00	2.13	23	9.14	1.21
6	8.75	2.12	24	9.71	0.48
7	5.50	4.56	25	8.71	2.21
8	6.50	3.33	26	9.00	1.00
9	7.63	2.82	27	8.86	1.67
10	7.38	2.66	28	8.29	1.97
11	9.13	0.83	29	8.86	2.26
12	9.00	0.92	30	6.14	3.89
13	8.13	1.95	31	8.17	3.12
14	8.50	1.60	32	8.57	1.81
15	8.75	2.81	33	7.86	3.33
16	9.25	1.03	34	6.29	3.35
17	7.00	3.11	35	8.86	2.19
18	9.63	0.74	36	8.43	1.90
Skewness	0.28	Std. error	0.75	z-value	0.37
Kurtosis	0.38	Std. error	1.48	z-value	0.26

---

Content validity

Chemistry subject area experts and counseling experts rated the degree to which scale items measure the construct of chemistry anxiety on a scale of 0–10, where higher scores indicate higher content validity. The lowest content validity was on item 6 (waiting to get a chemistry test returned in which you expected to do well) and the highest was on item 26 (working with a chemical whose identity you don't know). Experts' ratings ranged from 7.00 to 9.83 (mean = 8.40, sd = 0.74), which indicate that the Turkish DCARS items have high content validity (Table 4). The mean ranks of chemistry subject area experts and counseling experts did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The skewness and kurtosis values in Table 4 also do not indicate significant deviations from normality.

Table 4 Content validity scores (n = 12)

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Item	Mean	Standard deviation
1	9.00	2.25	19	8.75	1.42
2	8.50	1.38	20	9.42	1.24
3	7.92	2.19	21	7.83	2.51
4	8.83	1.40	22	7.42	2.74
5	7.92	1.92	23	8.50	1.83
6	7.00	2.66	24	9.25	0.86
7	7.50	2.81	25	7.17	3.24
8	7.92	2.15	26	9.83	0.38
9	9.50	0.67	27	9.50	0.67
10	8.00	2.13	28	8.25	2.56
11	9.17	1.58	29	8.50	2.39
12	7.83	2.75	30	8.83	1.46
13	8.42	1.67	31	8.33	2.38
14	8.08	1.92	32	8.67	1.77
15	8.42	2.06	33	7.17	3.46
16	7.42	3.26	34	8.50	1.56
17	9.33	1.15	35	8.08	1.83
18	9.42	1.16	36	8.00	2.08
Skewness	−0.62	Std. error	0.64	z-value	−0.97
Kurtosis	−0.74	Std. error	1.23	z-value	−0.60

---

Language equivalency

The original English and the Turkish versions were completed by 30 bilingual students who were enrolled in chemistry courses where the medium of instruction was English. First, students completed the Turkish version and a month later they completed the original English version. Paired samples t-test analyses were performed and Bonferroni-type adjustment was used for the familywise type-I error rate. For 36 t-tests, criterion α = 0.001 for each test. Using this criterion, Table 5 shows that there was no significant difference between the two administrations. In addition, students' total and subscale scores from the two administrations were compared. There was no significant difference between the two administrations on the total DCARS (t = −0.69, p < 0.50), learning chemistry anxiety (t = −0.73, p < 0.48), chemistry evaluation anxiety (t = −1.22, p < 0.23), or handling chemicals anxiety subscale score (t = −0.75, p < 0.46). These findings indicate that both at the total scale and subscale levels, the Turkish and English versions give substantially the same scores as the two administrations do not differ significantly.

Table 5 Paired samples t-test results (n = 30)

Item	t	p	Item	t	p
1	2.52	0.02	19	0.61	0.55
2	0.78	0.44	20	−0.23	0.82
3	1.51	0.14	21	−0.81	0.42
4	−1.44	0.16	22	−1.67	0.11
5	−1.99	0.06	23	−1.20	0.24
6	0.42	0.68	24	1.44	0.16
7	−0.53	0.60	25	−1.83	0.08
8	0.27	0.79	26	−1.98	0.06
9	1.82	0.08	27	−0.46	0.65
10	0.63	0.54	28	−0.84	0.41
11	−1.82	0.08	29	−0.68	0.50
12	0.12	0.91	30	−1.05	0.30
13	−2.21	0.04	31	−0.33	0.75
14	−0.18	0.86	32	−0.39	0.70
15	1.42	0.17	33	−1.02	0.31
16	−0.59	0.56	34	−0.13	0.90
17	−0.27	0.79	35	−0.28	0.78
18	1.30	0.20	36	−0.37	0.71

---

Structural validity

Data from 936 college students were used to investigate the initial psychometric properties of the DCARS Turkish version. First, the scale's original factor structure (i.e., three factors) was tested with all the original scale items included in the model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with the data and results showed that the data did not fit the model (Chi square/df = 3332.63/524; p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.08; NFI = 0.76; GFI = 0.83; AGFI = 0.80; CFI = 0.79). Therefore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was performed. For EFA, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.94 and Bartlet's test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), both indicating the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Results showed that out of 36 items, all but three items (i.e., 4, 10, and 32) loaded on the same factors as in the original scale. In addition, item 2 did not load with any factors. Consequently, these four items were dropped from the scale and analysis was re-run. At this time, three factors accounted for 43.88% of the variability in the data. Factor loadings ranged from 0.48 to 0.74 in the learning chemistry anxiety subscale, from 0.41 to 0.80 in the chemistry evaluation anxiety subscale, and from 0.47 to 0.73 in the handling chemicals anxiety subscale (Table 6). A second CFA was performed using the modified model and results show that the model fit was significantly improved (Chi square/df = 1875.69/461; p < 0.00; RMSEA = 0.06; NFI = 0.85; GFI = 0.89; AGFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.88).

Table 6 Descriptive statistics and the results of exploratory factor analysis (n = 936)

Item	Descriptive statistics		Factor loadings
	Skewness^a	Kurtosis^b	Learning chemistry anxiety	Chemistry evaluation anxiety	Handling chemicals anxiety
a Standard error of skewness = 0.94. b Standard error of kurtosis = 0.19.
36	1.44	1.23	0.74	0.13	0.09
12	1.51	0.28	0.68	0.09	−0.02
35	1.04	0.30	0.66	0.16	0.15
25	1.58	1.59	0.66	0.17	0.04
28	1.14	0.36	0.65	0.20	0.04
22	1.38	1.30	0.65	−0.05	0.15
16	1.09	0.28	0.63	0.11	0.08
33	1.37	0.76	0.60	0.00	−0.08
8	1.44	1.47	0.59	0.06	0.02
19	1.08	0.43	0.56	0.00	0.34
14	0.58	−0.29	0.53	0.28	0.03
7	1.29	0.21	0.53	0.14	−0.05
31	1.05	0.13	0.53	0.14	0.27
5	0.84	0.01	0.49	0.08	0.01
3	0.83	−0.23	0.48	0.20	0.10
21	0.76	−0.22	0.48	0.22	0.23
30	−0.18	−1.25	0.12	0.80	0.26
34	0.11	−1.21	0.20	0.73	0.16
13	0.53	2.11	0.14	0.73	0.09
11	−0.67	−0.73	−0.04	0.68	0.21
17	−0.04	−0.96	0.18	0.61	0.18
15	0.36	−0.83	0.35	0.56	0.04
23	0.04	−1.11	0.10	0.56	0.26
6	0.49	−1.08	0.01	0.41	0.02
20	0.12	−0.99	0.03	0.23	0.73
27	0.15	−1.02	0.11	0.16	0.71
18	0.40	−0.83	0.08	0.16	0.71
26	−0.01	−1.05	0.02	0.26	0.60
29	0.47	−0.73	0.04	0.14	0.59
1	−0.08	−0.58	−0.02	0.13	0.57
9	0.64	−0.59	0.03	0.15	0.49
24	0.69	−0.68	0.40	0.01	0.47

---

Concurrent validity

The DCARS Turkish version's concurrent validity was investigated in terms of its relationship with test anxiety, state anxiety, and trait anxiety (Table 7). Both the total and subscale scores were significantly correlated, the highest with test anxiety scores and the lowest with state anxiety scores. The highest correlation with test anxiety was the chemistry evaluation anxiety subscale, which further evidences the concurrent validity of the scale.

Table 7 Concurrent validity coefficients, intercorrelations, and descriptive results

	Total Turkish DCARS	Learning chemistry anxiety	Chemistry evaluation anxiety	Handling chemicals anxiety
a p < 0.01.
Learning chemistry anxiety	0.88^a
Chemistry evaluation anxiety	0.78^a	0.51^a
Handling chemicals anxiety	0.72^a	0.43^a	0.45^a
Test anxiety	0.42^a	0.28^a	0.43^a	0.24^a
State anxiety	0.03^a	0.06^a	−0.14^a	−0.10^a
Trait anxiety	0.20^a	0.14^a	0.19^a	0.12^a
Mean	75.56	31.00	23.25	21.38
Standard deviation	20.45	11.34	7.31	6.66
Mean/number of items	2.36	1.94	2.91	2.67
Cronbach's alpha coefficient	0.92	0.90	0.84	0.80

---

Reliability

The DCARS Turkish version's reliability was investigated by internal consistency of its items. Results in Table 7 show that Cronbach's alpha (Crα) coefficients were high both for the total and subscale scores. These coefficients indicate that the total and subscale items carry high levels of internal consistency. In addition, a one-month test-retest analysis showed statistically significant correlation coefficients on the total scale scores (r = 0.90) as well as learning chemistry anxiety (r = 0.78), chemistry evaluation anxiety (r = 0.78), and handling chemicals anxiety subscale scores (r = 0.81). These coefficients indicate that anxiety scores were stable over time.

Descriptive results

Descriptive statistics were computed for the total score and subscales (Table 7). All intercorrelations between the subscales of the DCARS were significantly related. Shared variability among the subscales ranged from 19% to 26%, which indicated that the subscales share a certain amount of common variability but, also, they are measuring structurally different components of chemistry anxiety.

Total DCARS scores ranged from 31 to 147 with a mean of 75.56 (sd = 20.45). When total and subscale scores were divided by the number of items in the subsequent subscale, results show that the mean chemistry anxiety score was 2.36 (sd = 0.96) out of a 5-point scale. The highest anxiety score was under chemistry evaluation and the lowest was under learning chemistry.

Discussion

The present study was the first attempt to adapt the Derived Chemistry Anxiety Rating Scale (Eddy, 1996) into Turkish and study its initial psychometric properties. The Turkish version includes 32 5-point Likert-type (1 = never to 5 = always) items under three subscales. The learning chemistry anxiety subscale includes items 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 33, 35, and 36. The chemistry evaluation anxiety subscale includes items 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23, 30, and 34. The handling chemicals anxiety subscale includes items 1, 9, 18, 20, 24, 26, 27, and 29. The total scale score is computed by adding the individual item responses and it may vary between 32 and 160, with higher scores indicating higher levels of chemistry anxiety. Similarly, subscale scores are computed by adding the item relevant to that subscale.

Data regarding the scale's content and language validity indicate that the Turkish items highly correspond to the original items, that the Turkish items conform with the Turkish grammar structure and are understandable, and that scale's items seem to measure the construct of chemistry anxiety. Initially, data did not conform with the original three-factor construct of chemistry anxiety; therefore, modifications were done as suggested by exploratory factor analysis. Four items were dropped from the scale (i.e., items 2, 4, 10, and 32). New model showed acceptable fit with the data. In addition, both the total and subscale items show high levels of internal consistency and, at the same time, total and subscale scores were found to be stable over time. Finally, concurrent validity of the Turkish DCARS was confirmed by significant correlations with test anxiety, state anxiety, and trait anxiety. Therefore, we conclude that the Turkish DCARS is a valid and reliable assessment instrument that can be used with Turkish college students in measuring the construct of chemistry anxiety.

Appendix

Items eliminated from the DCARS Turkish version

2	Reading and interpreting graphs or charts that show the results of a chemistry experiment.
4	Working on an abstract chemistry problem, such as “If x = grams of hydrogen and y = total grams of water produced, calculate the number of grams of oxygen that reacted with the hydrogen.”
10	Being told how to handle the chemicals for the laboratory experiment.
32	Walking into a chemistry laboratory.

Items for subscales 1, 2, and 3 of the DCARS Turkish version

Subscale 1: the learning chemistry anxiety
3	Starting a new chapter in a chemistry book.
5	Reading a formula in chemistry.
7	Picking up a chemistry textbook to begin working on a homework assignment.
8	Watching a teacher work a chemistry problem on the blackboard.
12	Walking into a chemistry class.
14	Being told how to interpret chemical equations.
16	Signing up for a chemistry course.
19	Listening to a lecture on chemicals.
21	Having to use the tables in a chemistry book.
22	Looking through the pages in a chemistry text.
25	Reading the word “chemistry”.
28	Walking on campus and thinking about a chemistry course.
31	Walking on campus and thinking about chemistry lab.
33	Buying a chemistry textbook.
35	Listening to another student explain a chemical reaction.
36	Listening to a lecture in a chemistry class.
Subscale 2: the chemistry evaluation anxiety
6	Waiting to get a chemistry test returned in which you expected to do well.
11	Being given a “pop” quiz in a chemistry class.
13	Taking an examination (quiz) in a chemistry course.
15	Getting ready to study for a chemistry test.
17	Being given a homework assignment of many difficult problems which is due the next chemistry class meeting
23	Solving a difficult problem on a chemistry test.
30	Taking an examination (final) in a chemistry course.
34	Thinking about an upcoming chemistry test one day before.
Subscale 3: the handling chemicals anxiety
1	Spilling a chemical.
9	Listening to another student describe an accident in the chemistry lab.
18	Working with acids in the lab.
20	Getting chemicals on your hands during the experiment.
24	Breathing the air in the chemistry laboratory.
26	Working with a chemical whose identity you don't know.
27	Mixing chemical reagents in the laboratory.
29	Heating a chemical in the Bunsen burner flame.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express gratitude to the editor and anonymous reviewers, whose comments and suggestions led to a more comprehensive paper.

References

1. Abendroth W. and Friedman F., (1983). Anxiety reduction for beginning chemistry students, J. Chem. Educ., 60(1), 25–26.
2. Azizoglu N. and Uzuntiryaki E., (2006), The Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Scale, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
3. Billington S., Smith R. B., Karousos N. G., Cowham E. and Davis J., (2008), Covert approaches to countering adult chemophobia, J. Chem. Educ., 85(3), 379–380.
4. Brush L. R., (1976), Mathematics anxiety in college students, unpublished manuscript, Wesleyan University.
5. Brush L. R., (1978), A validation study of the Mathematical Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS), Educ. Psychol. Meas., 38, 485–490.
6. Eddy R. M., (1996), Chemophobia in the college classroom: Extent, sources, and student characteristics, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
7. Eddy R. M., (2000), Chemophobia in the college classroom: extent, sources, and students characteristics, J. Chem. Educ., 77(4), 514–517.
8. Ellis A. B., (1993), A method that may enhance learning and reduce anxiety in introductory science examinations, J. Chem. Educ., 70(9), 768–770.
9. Plake B. S. and Parker C. S., (1982), The development and validation of a revised version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 42, 551–557.
10. Resnick J. H., Viehe J. and Segal S., (1982), Is math anxiety a local phenomenon? A study of prevalence and dimensionality, J. Couns. Psychol., 29, 39–47.
11. Richardson F. C. and Suinn R. M., (1972), The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale: Psychometric data, J. Couns. Psychol., 19, 551–554.
12. Rounds J. B. and Hendel D. D., (1980), Measurement and dimensionality of mathematics anxiety, J. Couns. Psychol., 27, 138–149.
13. Spielberger C. D., (1966), The effects of anxiety on complex learning and academic achievement, in Spielberger C. D. (ed.), anxiety and behavior, New York: Academic Press, pp. 361–398.
14. Spielberger C. D., (1972), Anxiety: current trend in theory and research, New York: Academic Press.
15. Spielberger C. D., (1980), Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
16. Spielberger C. D., Gorsuch R. L., Lushene R. E., Vagg P. R. and Jacobs G. A., (1983), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults sampler set: Manual, test, scoring key, California: Mind Garden.
17. Strawderman V. W., (1985), A description of mathematics anxiety using an integrative model, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
18. Suinn R. M. and Edwards, R., (1982), The measurement of mathematics anxiety. The mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale for Adolescents-MARS-A, J. Clin. Psychol., 38, 576–577.
19. Wells R. R., (2003), The development of an instrument to assess chemistry perceptions, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University.
20. Yucel A. S., (2008), Development of an anxiety scale for chemistry preparation of an anxiety tree, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 406–415.

---