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

Toyama, Michiko; Yamazaki, Yoshitaka

doi:10.1186/s40862-018-0045-3

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education

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

Three labels of Liu and Jackson’s study were named in this study based on our reanalysis about their data

Back to article page