Students’ interaction anxiety and social phobia in interprofessional education in Hong Kong: mapping a new research direction

Figures & data

Figure 1. IPE simulation model; MCQ: multiple choice questions; iRAT: individual readiness assurance test; tRAT: team readiness assurance test; RAT: readiness assurance test.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

	N	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	320	34.7
Female	605	65.4
Total	925
Year level
Second year	219	23.7
Third year	156	16.9
Fourth year	321	34.7
Fifth year (post graduate)	125	13.5
Missing	104	11.2
Total	925
Discipline
Medicine	160	17.3
Nursing	289	31.2
Social work	128	13.8
Chinese medicine	47	5.1
Pharmacy	89	9.6
Speech language pathology	52	5.6
Clinical psychology	12	1.3
Food and nutritional science	51	5.5
Physiotherapy	55	5.9
Missing	42	4.6
Total	925

Figure 2. The measurement model of SIAS-6 and SPA-6.

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics.

	Chi square	df	p	CFI	NFI	GFI	IFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Two-factor-12 items	396.3	52	.000	.965	.959	.931	.965	.955	.080	.029
One-factor-12 items	790.918	54	.000	.924	.919	.852	.924	.907	.122	.040
Criteria for good fit [55–57]				>.90	>.90	.90	>.90	>.90	.08 or lower	.08 or lower

Notes: CFI: comparative fit index; NFI: normed fit index; GFI: the goodness of fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation, SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.

Table 3. Invariance test of the two-factor solution across genders (n = 925).

Model	Chi square	df	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI	ΔCFI
Configural model	554.173	104	.068	.0333	.942	.954	–
Metric model	595.528	114	.068	.0344	.943	.951	.003
Scalar model	598.416	117	.067	.0361	.945	.951	.000

Notes: df: degrees of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; CFI: comparative fit index; ΔCFI: difference between the two model CFIs.

Table 4. Invariance test of the two-factor solution across year levels (n = 821).

Model	Chi square	df	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI	ΔCFI
Configural model	914.067	234	.60	.0625	.914	.924	–
Metric model	941.148	254	.58	.0594	.920	.923	.001
Scalar model	966.202	260	.58	.0522	.919	.921	.002

Notes: df: degrees of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; CFI: comparative fit index; ΔCFI: difference between the two model CFIs.

Table 5. Invariance test of the two-factor solution across disciplines (n = 882).

Model	Chi square	df	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI	ΔCFI
Configural model	707.550	182	.071	.0610	.905	.912	–
Metric model	719.037	192	.069	.0609	.909	.912	.000
Scalar model	730.243	195	.069	.0567	.909	.911	.001

Notes: df: degrees of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; CFI: comparative fit index; ΔCFI: difference between the two model CFIs.

Figure 3. Social interaction anxiety and social phobia among different disciplines.

Table 6. Gender differences in social interaction anxiety and social phobia as measured by SIAS-6 and SPS-6 (n = 925).

	Female (n = 605)		Male (n = 320)
Variable	Mean (SD)	95% CI	Mean (SD)	95% CI	t (923)	p	Cohen’s d
Social interaction anxiety	5.12 (5.3)	4.70–5.54	5.60 (5.50)	5.00–6.20	3.64	.06	–
Social phobia	4.93 (5.54)	4.49–5.37	5.55 (5.97)	4.90–6.20	4.21	.04	0.11

Notes: Score range from 0 to 24; CI: confidence interval.

Table 7. Year level differences in social interaction anxiety and social phobia as measured by SIAS-6 and SPS-6 (n = 821).

Variable	Year level	Mean (SD)	F (3,820)	p
Social interaction anxiety	2 (n = 219)	5.72 (5.11)	2.34	.07
	3 (n = 156)	5.32 (5.89)
	4 (n = 321)	5.18 (5.50)
	5 (n = 125)	4.28 (3.90)
Social phobia	2 (n = 219)	5.60 (5.34)	2.20	.09
	3 (n = 156)	5.60 (6.44)
	4 (n = 321)	5.16 (5.95)
	5 (n = 125)	4.10 (4.32)

Notes: Years 2, 3 and 4: undergraduate students; year 5: postgraduate students.

Table 8. Discipline-level differences in social interaction anxiety and social phobia as measured by SIAS-6 and SPS-6 (n = 882).

Variable	Discipline	Mean (SD)	95% CI	F (8,881)	p	η^2	Scheffé post-hoc comparison
Social interaction anxiety	Medicine (n = 160)	5.41 (5.24)	4.59–6.23	3.53	<.001	.03	Nursing > Social Work
	Nursing (n = 289)	6.17 (5.57)	5.53–6.82
	Social work (n = 128)	3.54 (3.82)	3.09–4.43
	Chinese medicine (n = 47)	7.02 (7.64)	4.78–9.27
	Pharmacy (n = 89)	4.85 (4.47)	3.91–5.80
	Speech language pathology (n = 52)	4.86 (4.69)	3.56–6.17
	Clinical psychology (n = 12)	3.50 (3.47)	1.29–5.71
	Food and nutritional science (n = 51)	5.11 (4.87)	3.75–6.49
	Physiotherapy(n = 55)	4.66 (4.90)	3.33–6.01
	Total(n = 883)	5.33 (5.23)	4.98–5.68
Social phobia	Medicine (n = 160)	4.63 (5.67)	3.75–5.52	3.18	.001	.03	–
	Nursing (n = 289)	5.95 (5.73)	5.29–6.62
	Social work (n = 128)	3.98 (4.66)	3.16–4.81
	Chinese medicine (n = 47)	7.34 (7.89)	5.02–9.66
	Pharmacy (n = 89)	4.66 (5.11)	3.59–5.74
	Speech language pathology (n = 52)	4.30 (4.79)	2.97–5.64
	Clinical psychology (n = 12)	2.33 (2.10)	1.00–3.67
	Food and nutritional science (n = 51)	5.64 (5.70)	4.04–7.25
	Physiotherapy (n = 55)	5.51 (6.20)	3.93–7.21
	Total (n = 883)	5.18 (5.66)	4.81–5.56

Note: CI: confidence interval.

Table 9. Correlation among study variables (n = 696).

Variable	1	2	3	4
1. Social interaction anxiety	–	.86***	−.26***	.25***
2. Social phobia		–	−.24***	.22***
3. Behavioural engagement			–	−.31***
4. Behavioural disaffection				–
Mean	5.45	5.26	2.14	1.1
SD	5.44	5.82	.56	.65
Cronbach’s alpha	.87	.89	.90	.83
Score range	0–24	0–24	0–4	0–4

***p < .001.

Table 10. Multiple regression analyses with social interaction anxiety and social phobia as predictors of behavioural engagement and disaffection (n = 696).

Variable	Behavioural engagement			Behavioural disaffection
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Social interaction anxiety	−.022	.008	−.208**	.026	.009	.214**
Social phobia	−.006	.007	−.058	.004	.008	.035
F	25.093***			22.169***
R^2	.065			.057

Note: **<.01, *** <.001.

Table 11. List of potential research topics using SIAS-6 and SPA-6 in IPE.

Research topic	Research approach
1. Examination of effects of intervention e.g. sentence-completion priming experiment, to help students who are high in social interaction anxiety	Quantitative
2. Identification of approaches or strategies in the management of students with social interaction anxiety e.g. team composition with the strategic assignment of students high in social interaction anxiety	Qualitative
3. Identification of factors which trigger interaction anxiety in IPE	Quantitative
4. Distinguishing the interactional patterns of students high in interactional anxiety	Qualitative
5. Establishing the nomological network of social interaction anxiety in the large classroom e.g. relationship of self-esteem and interaction anxiety, collaboration outcomes	Quantitative
6. Identifying the cultural dimension of social interactional anxiety in IPE	Mixed methods
7. Examining the effects of team-based or cooperative online learning IPE in reducing social anxiety	Quantitative
8. Distinguishing the effects of promoting interdependence and teamwork to reduce social anxiety and its effects on collaboration outcomes	Quantitative

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, GLT, upon reasonable request.