Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of seven previous studies’ results of factor analysis for the FLCAS

From: Exploring the components of the foreign language classroom anxiety scale in the context of Japanese undergraduates

  Aida 1994 (N = 96) Research context: USA; scale language: English Chen et al. 1999 (N = 423) Research context: Taiwan; scale language: Chinese Matsuda and Gobel 2004 (N = 252) Research context: Japan; scale language: Japanese Liu and Jackson 2008 (N = 547) Research context: China; scale language: Chinese Yashima et al. 2009 (N = 182) Research context: Japan; scale language: Japanese Mak 2011 (N = 313) Research context: Hong Kong; scale language: Chinese Park 2014 (N = 217) Research context: Korea; scale language: Korean
Item Speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation Fear of failing Comfortableness with Japanese Low self-confidence in speaking English General English classroom performance anxiety General English classroom performance anxiety Low self-confidence in speaking English Communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation Test anxiety Communication apprehension with positive attitude Lack of confidence in speaking English in class Fear of speaking in public Anxiety about not understanding everything taught Helplessness and negative attitude toward the English class Speech anxiety and fear of negative evaluation Uncomfortableness when speaking with native Negative attitudes towards the English class Fear of failing the class Communication apprehension and understanding Communication apprehension and confidence
1 0.58    0.72    0.60     0.61     0.54      0.60
2 (R)     0.51   0.55     0.46           0.53
3 0.77      −0.66   0.50     0.57    0.69      0.58
4 0.56     0.58 −0.55        0.79   0.64     0.58  
5 (R)        −0.62       0.39 −0.56    0.70    
6        0.48       −0.47     0.66    
7 0.71       0.57     0.89          
8 (R) −0.56      0.38           0.65     0.63
9 0.54    0.64   −0.52       0.52    0.67      0.66
10   0.72      0.51   0.51   0.44        0.68   
11 (R)    0.60         −0.67      0.66     0.58
12 0.69      −0.68       0.47    0.61     0.64  
13 0.76    0.59   −0.46   0.44    0.54 0.49   −0.40 0.59     0.60  
14 (R)    0.59 0.58   0.58     0.61       0.71     0.66
15      0.53         0.73      0.50 0.58  
16 0.60      −0.65          0.55     0.58  
17        0.70       −0.39 0.64    0.72    
18 (R) −0.67    0.70    −0.58    0.62 −0.64          0.72
19      0.50 − 0.42      − 0.43 0.56    0.57     0.58  
20 0.73      −0.73   0.50     0.38        0.58  
21 0.58     0.55 − 0.31 0.32        0.67       
22 (R)   −0.51     0.41        −0.48   0.54    0.51   
23 0.69       0.56     0.50          
24 0.73    0.67   −0.37       0.43    0.57      
25   0.53    0.59 −0.45 0.42   0.49      0.36      0.67  
26   0.51     −0.75         0.45 0.56     0.71  
27 0.75    0.69   −0.78       0.40    0.69     0.76  
28 (R)        −0.57     − 0.35          0.78
29 0.57     0.54 −0.68        0.78   0.56     0.60  
30      0.59 −0.45    0.64            
31 0.71    0.59   −0.63   0.57     0.64    0.64     0.64  
32 (R)    0.74     −0.44    0.62       0.74     0.64
33 0.60      −0.62       0.36    0.64     0.63  
  1. Three labels of Liu and Jackson’s study were named in this study based on our reanalysis about their data