Table 4. Methodological quality of each article per measurement property and instrument according to COSMIN Checklist.
| Measure | Article | Ref No. | Version | Internal Consistency | Reliability | Content Validity | Structural Validity | Hypothesis Testing | Criterion Validity | Responsiveness | |
| ADIS | Brown-Jacobsen et al (2011) | 40 | C + P | - | - | - | - | Good | - | - | |
| Canavera et al (2009) | 41 | C + P | - | - | - | - | Good | - | - | ||
| Comer & Kendal (2004) | 42 | C + P | - | Good | - | - | Good | - | - | ||
| Grills & Ollendick (2003) | 43 | C + P | - | Good | - | - | Good | - | - | ||
| Higa-McMillan (2008) | 44 | C | - | - | - | good | - | - | - | ||
| Lyneham et al (2007) | 45 | C + P | - | good | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Lyneham & Rapee (2005) | 46 | C + P | - | good | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Silverman et al (2001) | 47 | C + P | - | good | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Storch et al (2012) | 48 | C + P | - | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Wood et al (2002) | 49 | C + P | - | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| MASC | Anderson et al (2009)* | 50 | C | good | - | - | - | excellent | excellent | - | |
| Baldwin & Dadds (2007) | 51 | C + P | excellent | - | - | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| Brown et al (2012) | 52 | C | good | - | - | good | - | - | - | ||
| Dierker et al (2001) | 53 | C | fair | - | - | - | - | good | - | ||
| Grills-Taquechel et al (2008) | 54 | C | excellent | - | - | good | - | excellent | - | ||
| Langer et al (2010) | 55 | C + P | fair | - | - | - | - | good | - | ||
| March et al (1997) | 56 | C + P | excellent | poor α | - | excellent | poor α | - | - | ||
| March & Sullivan (1999) | 57 | C | - | good | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Ross et al (2007) | 58 | C | - | - | - | - | - | good | - | ||
| Rynn et al (2006) | 59 | C | good | - | - | good | good | excellent | - | ||
| Thaler et al (2010) | 60 | C + P | fair | - | - | - | fair | fair | - | ||
| White et al (2012) | 61 | C + P | fair | - | - | - | fair | - | - | ||
| Wood et al (2002) | 49 | C + P | - | - | - | - | - | excellent | - | ||
| RCADS | Brown et al (2012) | 52 | C | good | - | - | good | - | - | - | |
| Chorpita et al (2000) | 35 | C | excellent | good | good | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| Chorpita et al (2005) | 62 | C | excellent | - | - | excellent | fair | excellent | - | ||
| Ebesutani et al (2010) | 63 | P | excellent | - | - | excellent | good | excellent | - | ||
| Ebesutani et al (2011) | 64 | P | excellent | good | - | excellent | excellent | - | - | ||
| Ebesutani et al (2012) | 65 | C Short | excellent | - | - | excellent | - | excellent | - | ||
| Trent et al (2012) | 66 | C | excellent | - | - | excellent | - | - | - | ||
| RCMAS | Cole et al (2000)** | 67 | C + P | poor β | - | - | excellent | - | - | - | |
| Dadds et al (1998)*** | 68 | C | good | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Dierker et al (2001) | 53 | C | fair | - | - | - | good | good | - | ||
| Kenny & Faust (1997) | 69 | C | - | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Nelson & Renzenbrink (1995) | 70 | C | - | poor | - | - | poor α | - | - | ||
| Olatunji & Cole** (2009) | 71 | C | good | excellent | - | excellent | - | - | - | ||
| Paget & Reynolds (1984) | 72 | C | poor β | - | - | poor α | - | - | - | ||
| Perrin & Last (1992) | 73 | C | - | - | - | - | - | fair | - | ||
| Pina et al (2009) | 74 | C | - | - | - | excellent | fair | - | - | ||
| Reynolds & Paget (1981) | 75 | C | - | - | - | excellent | - | - | - | ||
| Reynolds & Richmond (1997) | 30 | C | poor | - | fair | - | fair | - | - | ||
| White & Farrell (2001) | 76 | C | - | - | excellent | excellent | - | - | - | ||
| Wisniewski et al (1987) | 77 | C | - | good | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| SCARED | Bailey et al (2006)* | 78 | C + P | - | - | - | - | - | excellent | - | |
| Birmaher et al (1997) | 31 | C + P | excellent | fair | good | good | fair | excellent | - | ||
| Birmaher et al (1999) | 79 | C + P | poor α | - | - | poor α | fair | fair | - | ||
| Bodden et al (2009) | 80 | C + P SCARED-71 | good | - | - | - | - | excellent | - | ||
| Gonzalez et al (2012) | 81 | C + P | good | - | - | excellent | - | excellent (P) | - | ||
| Jastrowski et al (2012) | 82 | C + P | excellent | - | - | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| Monga et al (2000) | 83 | C + P | - | - | - | - | excellent | excellent | - | ||
| Muris et al (1999) | 85 | C + P SCARED-R | good | good | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Muris et al (2004) | 86 | C + P SCARED-R | poor | - | - | - | fair | excellent | - | ||
| Muris & Mayer et al (2001) | 87 | C SCARED-R | - | - | - | - | - | fair | fair | ||
| Muris and Steerneman (2001) | 84 | C SCARED-R | fair | - | - | - | fair | fair | - | ||
| Simon & Bogels (2009) | 88 | C SCARED-71 | - | - | - | - | - | excellent | - | ||
| Van Steensel (2012) | 89 | C + P SCARED-71 | good | - | - | - | good | excellent | - | ||
| Wren et al (2007) | 90 | C + P | - | - | - | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| SCAS | Brown-Jacobsen et al (2011) | 40 | C + P | good | - | - | - | good | good | - | |
| Essua (2011) | 91 | C | excellent | - | - | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| Nauta (2004) | 92 | P | excellent | - | - | excellent | good | excellent | - | ||
| Russell & Sofronoff (2005) | 93 | C + P | - | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| Spence (1998) | 33 | C | excellent | good | - | excellent | good | excellent | - | ||
| Spence et al (2003) | 94 | C | excellent | good | - | excellent | good | - | - | ||
| Whiteside & Brown (2008) | 95 | C + P | good | - | - | - | good | good | - | ||
| Whiteside et al (2012)**** | 96 | C + P | good | - | - | - | good | good | - | ||
| SWQ | Bailey et al (2006) | 78 | P | - | - | - | - | - | excellent | - | |
| Russell & Sofronoff (2005) | 93 | C + P | - | - | - | - | good | - | - | ||
| CGI | Lewin et al (2012) | 97 | Improvement | - | good | - | - | - | - | - | |
ADIS: Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule. MASC: Manifest Anxiety Scale for Children. RCADS: Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale. RCMAS: Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale. SCARED: Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Emotional Disorders. SCAS: Spence Children's Anxiety Scale. SWQ: Social Worries Questionnaire. CGI: Clinical Global Impressions.
Measurement Error was not evaluated in any article; Cross cultural validity was not included in the review..
C = child self report; P = parent report. R = Revised.
looked at particular subscale (Social Anxiety/Social Phobia); ** created continuous data by altering response format; *** looked at particular subscale (total score and lie); **** looked at particular subscale (OCD).
α small sample; β no alpha for subscales.