ERPSAS - Validation of the Emotional Reasoning in Public Speaking Anxiety Scale

Emotional reasoning (ER) is the process of forming judgments based on emotions rather than objective information. To assess ER specifically in individuals with public speaking anxiety (PSA), we developed the Emotional Reasoning in Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (ERPSAS). This scale aims to quantify the extent to which emotions influence reasoning processes in the context of PSA. In our study, we administered the ERPSAS to a sample drawn from the general population. To establish the validity of the scale, we conducted two types of analyses: convergent validity, comparing it with existing measures of ASP, and divergent validity, comparing it with measures of anxiety and depression. For convergent validity, we assessed the ERPSAS together with established measures of ASP, including the Spanish version of the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (PSAS-S; Bartholomay & Houlihan, 2016; Dueñas et al., 2018), the validated Spanish version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Gallego et al., 2007; Leary, 1983), and the Positive and Negative Self-Affirmations in Public Speaking Scale (SSPS; Hofmann & DiBartolo, 2000; Rivero et al., 2010). This approach allowed us to determine the degree of alignment of the SSPSAS with other instruments designed to measure similar constructs.
In terms of divergent validity, we compared the ERPSAS with measures of anxiety and depression, namely the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Diez-Quevedo et al., 2001; Kroenke et al., 2001) and the short version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T; Buela-Casal & Guillén-Riquelme, 2017; Spielberger et al., 1970). By examining the relationship of the ERPSAS to these constructs, we were able to ensure that it measured PSA-specific emotional reasoning and not general emotional distress. Through our analyses, we identified an optimal cut-off point for the ERPSAS, resulting in a four-stage scale reflecting PSA severity. Notably, people with severe PSA tended to rate scenarios with negative emotional valence as more threatening, even when presented with safe factual information (p<0.001).