Joun~al qfAn.rrr~ Duordrrs. Vol. I, pp. I17- 121. 1987 llXX7.hlX/X7 $3.

W + cn,
Prmed m the USA All right, reserved. Copyngh! ‘c IYX7 Perpmon Journal\. Ltd.

The Anxiety Sensitivity Index:

Construct Validity and Factor Analytic Structure

ROLF A. PETERSON, PH.D.*

ROBERT L. HEILBRONNER, PH.D.

Abstract-Reliability. factor structure. and factor independence from other anx-

iety measures for the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI) was assessed. One hundred
and twenty-two anxious college students were administered the ASI, Cognitive-
Somatic Anxiety Questionnaire. and the Reactions to Relaxation and Arousal
Questionnaire. The results suggest that the ASI is a reliable measure which is
factorially independent of other anxiety measures. Further, the ASI was sup-
ported as a measure of the variable anxiety sensitivity which has been suggested
as an important personality variable in fear behavior.

The Reiss-Epstein-Gursky Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI) is a 16

item measure developed to assess a person’s beliefs about the social and
somatic consequences of anxiety symptoms (Reiss & McNally, 1985;
Reiss, Peterson. Gursky, & McNally, 1986). These beliefs, as a set, are
conceptualized as a relatively stable dispositional variable, which con-
tributes to fear learning, avoidance behavior, and anxiety disorders
(Reiss et al., 1986). Further, anxiety sensitivity is hypothesized to com-
bine with danger expectancy and anxiety expectancy in the development
and maintenance of anxiety-based disorders (Reiss & McNally, 1985).
The AS1 has test-retest reliability in the .71 to .75 range and single factor
structure (Reiss et al., 1986). The ASI predicts level of fearfulness above
and beyond that accounted for by other anxiety measures (Reiss et al..
1986). Also. anxiety disorder subjects obtain higher scores on the AS1
than do normals (Reiss et al., ‘1986). Maller and Reiss (1985) have demon-
strated that subjects with high scores on the AS1 exhibit more anxiety on
a speech disturbance measure when asked to talk about how it feels to be
anxious than do those with low scores.

X Address correspondence and reprint requests to Rolf A. Peterson. Department of Psy-

chology. GG204. The George Washington University. Washington. D.C. 20052.
118 R. A. PETERSON AND R. L. HEILBRONNER

The data available thus far suggests that the ASI is a reliable and valid
measure of the personality variable of anxiety sensitivity (fear of fear).
Further data on reliability, factor structure, and independence from other
anxiety, or presumed fear of anxiety, measures are-needed to help eval-
uate the adequacy of the measure.

METHOD

Subjects

One hundred and twenty-two college student volunteers who reported

“tension, anxiety, and nervousness during at least 40% of the day” and
volunteered for a relaxation study for course credit were tested.

Measures

The subjects were administered the 16 item ASI, Cognitive-Somatic

Anxiety Questionnaire (CSAQ: Schwartz, Davidson. & Goleman. 1978).
and the Reactions to Relaxation and Arousal Questionnaire (RRAQ:
Heide & Borkovec, 1983). It has been suggested that the CSAQ measures
cognitive and somatic aspects of trait anxiety (Schwartz et al.. 1978).
whereas the RRAQ was developed to measure several aspects of the fear
of experiencing anxiety (Heide & Borkovec, 1983).

RESULTS
The mean scores on the ASI were similar to those expected for a self-
reported anxious group. The males obtained a mean of 19.69 with a SD
of 9.63, which is_significantly higher than the Reiss et al. (1986) norm
sample scores ofX = 15.4, SD = 8.1 (t (100) = 2.35. p < .OS) but lower
than the x = 25.8 s_cores for the Reiss et al. anxiety disorder group. The
females obtained a X mean ofJ3.60, SD = 10.90, which was significantly
higher than the norm group (X = 20.5, SD = 10.2; t (162) =_ 1.87, p <
.05, one-tailed), and similar to the female anxiety group (X = 23.9).
Thus, the self-reported anxious college students obtained higher ASI
scores than did the Reiss et al. (1986) normal sample.
Internal reliability was evaluated by obtaining an internal consistency
reliability of alpha (.88), and a Guttman split-half reliability c.85). The
factor structure and relationship of the AS1 to other measures was ob-
tained through a series of factor and correlational analysis. Four factors
were extracted by principal components analysis to the criterion of ei-
genvalues of 1.0 or greater. Those factors were rotated to an oblique
simple structure. Two factors were associated with an a priori “fear of
consequences” factor and two with the a priori “fear of physical sensa-
tion” factor and accounted for 60.9% of the variance. A varimax rotation
analysis, with a specified two factor structure, was used to further eval-
 ANXIETY SENSITIVITY INDEX 119

uate the a priori factor. The two uncorrelated factors; resulted in 1I of the
16 items loading on Factor I. A second factor contained five items with
the heaviest loading on that factor, but three of the five items also loaded
relatively high on Factor 1. ’
The AS1 total score, RRAQ total score, and the CSAQ total score
were factor analyzed using an oblique rotation. The ASI formed one
factor, whereas the RRAQ and CSAQ formed the other factor (see Table
l), with the two factors having only 29% shared variance (r = S4). A
second analysis entered the a priori content factor of the ASI and the
unweighted content factor scores proposed fo the CSAQ and RRAQ into
an oblique rotation factor analysis. The AS1 subscales and the CSAQ and
RRAQ subscales formed separate factors as shown in Table 2, with a
correlation of .53 between the two factors.
Another method of determining the amount of common variance be-
tween measures is through the use of a regression analysis. The data
were submitted to a stepwise regression analysis in which the AS1 served
as the dependent measure and the RRAQ and CSAQ as predictor vari-
ables. The predictor variables accounted for thirty-nine percent of the
variance of the AS1 (adjusted R 2 = .392), which is a significant propor-
tion of variance, but, more importantly for the question of amount of
independence of measures, leaves the majority of variance of the AS1
unaccounted for by anxiety measures.

DISCUSSION
The internal consistency of the AS1 is appropriate and the measure
produced group scores consistent with the expectations for the self-de-
fined sample of anxious college students. Females, in general, obtain
higher AS1 scores than males. This may reflect a sex difference in the
valence of anxiety symptoms or a sex difference in willingness to report
sensitivity to anxiety symptoms.
The factor structure results raise an issue about the best way to use the
measure. The four correlated factors resulting from the oblique rotation
are factors with only a few items in each factor. Thus, these factors may
be unreliable or lack sufficient power to strongly relate to other variables.

TABLE I
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR OBLIQUE ROTATION ON TOTAL SCALE SCORES

Factor 1 Factor 2

ASI 0.01894 0.98387

RRAQ 0.79346 0.23274
CSAQ 1.01448 - 0.09823

’ Factor loadings are available from the first author upon request.
130 R. A. PETERSONANDR. L. HEILBRONNER

TABLE'
OBLIQUEROTATION FAON THEFACTORSCORESFORTHEASI.CSAQ AND RRAQ

Factor I Factor 2

AS1
-
SENS -0.01460 0.95331
CONS 0.06655 0.X962

CsAQ

COG 0.84886 0.02573

SOM 0.78401 - 0.0521'

RRAQ

FACl 0.74756 0.11738

FAG 0.59840 0.29528
FAC3 0.94187 -O.IJllO
FAC4 0.78565 - 0.03950

The varimax rotation for a two factor structure resulted in the second
factor containing only five items. Also, the majority of the second factor
items loaded highly on Factor 1 as well as Factor 2. The loading on the
first factor is very similar to the first factor loadings reported by Reiss et
al. (1986), suggesting a strong single factor. Whether or not the second
factor will be reliable, and whether different relationships exist for the
two factors, remains to be demonstrated. The ASI total scale score has
demonstrated validity (McNally & Lorenz, 1986; Reiss et al., 1986).
Thus, the total scale score should be used in future clinical and research
work until evidence for the validity of factor scores has been demon-
strated.
The separation in factors of the ASI and the CSAQiRRAQ and the AS1
variance unaccounted for by the CSAQ and RRAQ in the regression anal-
ysis, along with previous data which indicates the AS1 is measuring a
construct (anxiety sensitivity) different from the anxiety construct and
usual anxiety measures (Reiss et al., 1986), suggests the AS1 measures
anxiety sensitivity, while the CSAQ and RRAQ appear to measure anx-
iety. The relationship between the AS1 and anxiety measures appears to
depend on the type of measure and population under investigation.
McNally and Lorenz (1986) obtained a .36 (p < .05) correlation with the
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale for an agoraphobic population. while Sei-
denberg and Peterson (1986) obtained a correlation of .33 (p < .OS) be-
tween the AS1 and Spielberger state score and .07 (p < .05) between the
AS1 and Spielberger trait score in a sample of first year medical students.
The relationship between the AS1 and other measures of anxiety is ex-
pected to be stronger (more related) in a high anxiety population than a
low anxiety population. Since anxiety sensitivity is conceptualized as a
 ANXIETY SENSITIVITY INDEX 121

dispositional variable which may predispose a person to the development

of high or frequent episodes of anxiety, a high anxiety population would
be expected to have high ASI scores. Although the ASI may in some
samples correlate highly with anxiety measures, the ASI appears to mea-
sure a sensitivity to fear, or reaction to anxiety, which is relatively inde-
pendent of amount of anxiety expressed at a given time.
This study did not include the fear of fear measures for agoraphobics
(Chambless, Caputo, Gallagher, & Bright, 1984) which also are consid-
ered fear of fear or sensitivity measures. In a recently completed study,
McNally and Lorenz (1986) examined the prediction of fearfulness in an
agoraphobic sample with both the ASI and the Chambless et al. (1984)
scales. The ASI, as in the Reiss et al. (1986) study, accounted for a signif-
icant proportion of the variance in the prediction of fearfulness, whereas
the Chambless et al. scales did not account for a significant proportion of
the variance. The Chambless et al. (1984) scales were developed to mea-
sure fear of fear in agoraphobics rather than measure a general sensitivity
to anxiety. so the failure to predict fearfulness was not unexpected.
The data to date suggest that the ASI is a reliable measurement instru-
ment which is relatively independent of anxiety measures. Thus, the AS1
provides an operational definition of the construct of anxiety sensitivity
which is independent of amount of anxiety reported. Further, the AS1
appears to provide a unique contribution to the prediction of fear be-
havior beyond that contributed by the anxiety measures.

REFERENCES
Chambless. D. L.. Caputo. C.. Gallagher. R.. & Bright. P. (1984). Assessment of fear of fear
in agoraphobia: The Body sensations questionnaire and agorphobic cognitions question-
naire. Jolrwctl of Cottsrrltinpand Clinical Psychology, 52, 1090- 1097.
Heide. E J.. 8i Borkovec. T. D. (1983). Relaxation-induced anxiety: Paradoxical anxiety
enhancement due to relaxation training. Jolrr~tal ofCons~r/ting und Clinkal Psychology.
51, p. 171-182.
Maller. R.. & Reiss. S. (1985. November). Anxief~ sensititirx and unxiet_v incubation.
Poster presented at the meeting of Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Houston. TX.
McNally. R. J.. & Lorenz. M. (1986). Anxiety srrlsitilify in ugomphobics. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Reiss. S.. Br McNally,. R. J. (1985). The expectancy model of fear. In S. Reiss and R. R.
Bootzin IEds. ). Theoreticcrl issrre.7 in hehrrt?or therupy. New York: Academic Press.
Reiss. S.. Peterson. R. A.. Gursky. D. M.. & McNally. R. J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity.
anxiety frequency. and the prediction of fearfulness. Bclm~ior Research and Therupy.
24. l-8.
Schwartz. G. E.. Davidson. R. J.. 8: Goleman. D. J. (1978). Patterning of cognitive and
somatic processes in the self-regulation of anxiety. Effects of meditation versus exer-
cise. P.~~cl~c~.so~~tnr;~~ Medicine. 40, 32 l-328.
Seidenberg. M.. & Peterson. R. A. (1986). [Prediction of success in medical school]. Un-
published rau data.