The phenomenon of statistics anxiety, prevalent particularly among students engaged in non-mathematical disciplines such as the social sciences, has been linked to a multitude of detrimental outcomes. Over time, several instruments have been developed to measure this construct; however, a comprehensive analysis of these instruments and an adequate evaluation of their psychometric properties have been conspicuously absent. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we undertook a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Our focus was on studies that were published in peer-reviewed English journals and reported a self-report measure of statistics anxiety. These included both original developments and further validations. We employed Skinner’s three-stage framework to assess the methodological quality of the instruments that were retrieved. Out of the 225 results that our search yielded, a mere 28 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The resulting papers reported on the psychometric properties of eight scales. The identified measures undoubtedly provide the potential of capturing some of the key features of the construct. However, our analyses unveiled certain psychometric limitations. Consequently, we advise researchers to either use the most psychometrically robust measures or conduct additional evaluations to ensure the accuracy of their results.

统计焦虑现象在社会科学等非数学学科的学生中尤其普遍，它与多种有害结果有关。随着时间的推移，已经开发出了多种工具来测量这种结构；然而，显然缺乏对这些工具的全面分析以及对其心理测量特性的充分评估。为了弥补这一差距，我们根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 指南，使用 PsycINFO、Scopus、Web of Science、MEDLINE 和 PubMed 进行了系统评价。我们的重点是在同行评审的英文期刊上发表的研究，并报告了统计焦虑的自我报告测量。其中包括原始开发和进一步验证。我们采用斯金纳的三阶段框架来评估检索到的仪器的方法质量。在我们的搜索产生的 225 个结果中，只有 28 个满足纳入标准。由此产生的论文报告了八个量表的心理测量特性。所确定的措施无疑提供了捕获该结构的一些关键特征的潜力。然而，我们的分析揭示了某些心理测量的局限性。因此，我们建议研究人员要么使用心理测量上最稳健的措施，要么进行额外的评估，以确保结果的准确性。