A PANAS Structure Analysis: On the Validity of a Bifactor Model in Korean College Students
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
Korean Version of PANAS (K-PANAS)
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Allan, N.P.; Lonigan, C.J.; Phillips, B.M. Examining the factor structure and structural invariance of the PANAS across children, adolescents, and young adults. J. Personal. Assess. 2015, 97, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Watson, D.; Wiese, D.; Vaidya, J.; Tellegen, A. The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 820–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, J.A. A circumplex model of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 1161–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1020–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D.; Tellegen, A. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leue, A.; Beauducel, A. The PANAS structure revisited: On the validity of a bifactor model in community and forensic samples. Psychol. Assess. 2011, 23, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 47, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benetti, C.; Kambouropoulos, N. Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 41, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciarrochi, J.; Heaven, P.C.; Davies, F. The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. J. Res. Personal. 2007, 41, 1161–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumora, G.; Arsenio, W.F. Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school children. J. Sch. Psychol. 2002, 40, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, R.E.; Attkisson, C.C.; Rosenblatt, A. Prevalence of psychopathology among children and adolescents. Am. J. Psychiatry 1998, 155, 715–725. [Google Scholar]
- Saxon, L.; Henriksson, S.; Kvarnström, A.; Hiltunen, A.J. Affective changes during cognitive behavioural therapy–as measured by PANAS. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health CPEMH 2017, 13, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balatsky, G.; Diener, E. Subjective well-being among Russian students. Soc. Indic. Res. 1993, 28, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaudreau, P.; Sanchez, X.; Blondin, J.P. Positive and negative affective states in a performance-related setting: Testing the factorial structure of the PANAS across two samples of French-Canadian participants. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2006, 22, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joiner Jr, T.E.; Sandin, B.; Chorot, P.; Lostao, L.; Marquina, G. Development and factor analytic validation of the SPANAS among women in Spain: (More) cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood. J. Personal. Assess. 1997, 68, 600–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krohne, H.W.; Egloff, B.; Kohlmann, C.W.; Tousch, A. Investigations with a German version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Diagnostica 1996, 42, 139–156. [Google Scholar]
- Pandey, R.; Srivastava, N. Psychometric evaluation of a Hindi version of positive–negative affect schedule. Ind. Psychiatry J. 2008, 17, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.; Lee, J. A validation study of Korean version of PANAS-Revised. Korean J. Psychol. Gen. 2016, 35, 617–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, A.; Yasuda, A. Development of the Japanese version of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scales. Jpn. J. Personal. 2001, 9, 138–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R.; Hagemann, D.; Costa, P.T., Jr. Individual difference variables, affective differentiation, and the structures of affect. J. Personal. 2003, 71, 669–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crawford, J.R.; Henry, J.D. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 43, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuccitto, D.E.; Giacobbi, P.R., Jr.; Leite, W.L. The internal structure of positive and negative affect: A confirmatory factor analysis of the PANAS. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2010, 70, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshanloo, M. Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the Negative and Positive Affect Scale (NAPAS). Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 105, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merz, E.L.; Roesch, S.C. Modeling trait and state variation using multilevel factor analysis with PANAS daily diary data. J. Res. Personal. 2011, 45, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mihić, L.; Novović, Z.; Čolović, P.; Smederevac, S. Serbian adaptation of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Its facets and second-order structure. Psihologija 2014, 47, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortuño-Sierra, J.; Santarén-Rosell, M.; de Albéniz, A.P.; Fonseca-Pedrero, E. Dimensional structure of the Spanish version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in adolescents and young adults. Psychol. Assess. 2015, 27, e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seib-Pfeifer, L.E.; Pugnaghi, G.; Beauducel, A.; Leue, A. On the replication of factor structures of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 107, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, V.D. Do Trait Positive and Trait Negative Affect Predict Progress and Discharge Outcomes in an Inpatient Medical Rehabilitation Population. Ph.D. Dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billings, D.W.; Folkman, S.; Acree, M.; Moskowitz, J.T. Coping and physical health during caregiving: The roles of positive and negative affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crocker, P.R. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) with a youth sport sample. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1997, 19, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, J.M.; Yik, M.S.; Russell, J.A.; Barrett, L.F. On the psychometric principles of affect. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1999, 3, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, D.P.; Salovey, P.; Truax, K.M. Static, dynamic, and causative bipolarity of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Schuur, W.H.; Kiers, H.A. Why factor analysis often is the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use instead. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1994, 18, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores-Kanter, P.E.; Garrido, L.E.; Moretti, L.S.; Medrano, L.A. A modern network approach to revisiting the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS) construct validity. J. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 77, 2370–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Wong, N.; Yi, Y. The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cogn. Emot. 1999, 13, 641–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.T.H.; Hartanto, A.; Yong, J.C.; Koh, B.; Leung, A.K. Examining the cross-cultural validity of the positive affect and negative affect schedule between an Asian (Singaporean) sample and a Western (American) sample. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 23, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zevon, M.A.; Tellegen, A. The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merz, E.L.; Malcarne, V.L.; Roesch, S.C.; Ko, C.M.; Emerson, M.; Roma, V.G.; Sadler, G.R. Psychometric properties of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) original and short forms in an African American community sample. J. Affect. Disord. 2013, 151, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mehrabian, A. Comparison of the PAD and PANAS as models for describing emotions and for differentiating anxiety from depression. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 1997, 19, 331–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Killgore, W.D.S. Evidence for a third factor on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule in a college student sample. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2000, 90, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Posner, J.; Russell, J.A.; Peterson, B.S. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 2005, 17, 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubeck, B.G.; Boulter, E. PANAS Models of Positive and Negative Affectivity for Adolescent Boys. Cogn. Lang. Dev. 2021, 124, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, H.H.; Kim, E.J.; Lee, M.K. A Validation Study of Korea Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: The PANAS Scales. Korean J. Clin. Psychol. 2003, 22, 935–946. [Google Scholar]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weston, R.; Gore, P.A., Jr. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 719–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galinha, I.C.; Pereira, C.R.; Esteves, F.G. Confirmatory factor analysis and temporal invariance of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Psicol. Reflexão Crítica 2013, 26, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenspoon, P.J.; Saklofske, D.H. Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Soc. Indic. Res. 2001, 54, 81–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seligman, M.E.P. Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In Handbook of Positive Psychology; Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 3–9. [Google Scholar]
- Heubeck, B.G.; Wilkinson, R. Is all fit that glitters gold? Comparisons of two, three and bi-factor models for Watson, Clark & Tellegen’s 20-item state and trait PANAS. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 144, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raykov, T. Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 22, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shorey, R.C.; McNulty, J.K.; Moore, T.M.; Stuart, G.L. Emotion regulation moderates the association between proximal negative affect and intimate partner violence perpetration. Prev. Sci. 2015, 16, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Leal, R.; Megías-Robles, A.; Gutiérrez-Cobo, M.J.; Cabello, R.; Fernández-Berrocal, P. Personal Risk and Protective Factors Involved in Aggressive Behavior. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP1489–NP1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1991, 100, 316–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanson, R.K.; Morton-Bourgon, K.E. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol. Assess. 2009, 21, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dyck, M.J.; Jolly, J.B.; Kramer, T. An evaluation of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and hyperarousal as markers for assessing between syndrome relationships. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1994, 17, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | C16 | C17 | C18 | C19 | C20 | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
C2 | −0.21 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
C3 | −0.24 *** | 0.59 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
C4 | 0.34 *** | −0.23 *** | −0.29 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
C5 | 0.53 *** | −0.17 *** | −0.27 *** | 0.42 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
C6 | −0.02 | 0.16 *** | 0.24 *** | −0.13 *** | −0.04 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
C7 | −0.02 | 0.57 *** | 0.52 *** | −0.18 *** | −0.15 *** | 0.31 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
C8 | 0.32 *** | −0.09 * | 0.02 | 0.20 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.14 *** | 0.03 | 1 | |||||||||||||
C9 | 0.30 *** | −0.06 | −0.04 | 0.24 *** | 0.22 *** | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.45 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||
C10 | −0.03 | 0.27 *** | 0.28 *** | −0.09 ** | −0.04 | 0.31 *** | 0.32 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.19 *** | 1 | |||||||||||
C11 | −0.08 * | 0.21 *** | 0.29 *** | −0.12 *** | −0.12 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.10 ** | 0.02 | 0.23 *** | 1 | ||||||||||
C12 | 0.36 *** | −0.07 * | −0.09 ** | 0.24 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.34 *** | 0.39 *** | 0.11 ** | 0.09 * | 1 | |||||||||
C13 | −0.13 *** | 0.29 *** | 0.42 *** | −0.18 *** | −0.17 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.07 | −0.02 | 0.44 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.02 | 1 | ||||||||
C14 | 0.23 *** | −0.004 | −0.02 | 0.20 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.12 ** | 0.04 | 0.33 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.32 *** | 0.04 | 0.40 *** | 0.13 *** | 1 | |||||||
C15 | −0.09* | 0.36 *** | 0.42 *** | −0.10 ** | −0.12 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.06 | 0.08* | 0.26 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.07 * | 0.38 *** | 0.08 * | 1 | ||||||
C16 | −0.16 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.45 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.19 *** | 0.32 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.03 | −0.03 | 0.47 *** | 0.34*** | −0.04 | 0.52 *** | 0.07 * | 0.41 *** | 1 | |||||
C17 | 0.46 *** | −0.09 * | 0.10 ** | 0.26 *** | 0.35 *** | −0.02 | −0.06 | 0.37 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.19 *** | −0.05 | 0.43 *** | −0.05 | 0.41 *** | 0.03 | −0.02 | 1 | ||||
C18 | 0.54 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.29 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.58 *** | −0.06 | −0.17 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.34 *** | −0.01 | −0.14 *** | 0.31 *** | −0.15 *** | 0.23 *** | −0.16 *** | −0.17 *** | 0.57 *** | 1 | |||
C19 | 0.47 *** | −0.20 *** | −0.25 *** | 0.36 *** | 0.45 *** | −0.01 | −0.15 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.09 ** | −0.09 ** | 0.45 *** | −0.11 ** | 0.37 *** | −0.04 | −0.15 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.61 *** | 1 | ||
C20 | −0.16 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.49 *** | −0.20 *** | −0.18 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.45 *** | 0.41 *** | −0.01 | 0.71 *** | 0.10 ** | 0.45 *** | 0.65 *** | −0.05 | −0.19 *** | −0.12 ** | 1 | |
M | 3.48 | 3.40 | 3.06 | 3.08 | 3.46 | 2.59 | 3.02 | 2.86 | 2.96 | 3.22 | 2.60 | 0.09 | 2.77 | 3.19 | 2.37 | 2.85 | 3.35 | 3.44 | 3.13 | 2.76 | 3.03 |
SD | 0.94 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.13 | 1.17 | 1.11 | 1.01 | 1.12 | 1.23 | 0.99 | 1.22 | 0.94 | 1.12 | 1.23 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 1.08 | 1.16 | 1.08 |
Models | χ2 | df | Δχ2 | Δdf | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | ΔCFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1: One-factor model | 4067.01 | 170 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.17 | |||
Model 2: Two-factor model | 1568.35 | 169 | 2498.67 *** | 1 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.37 |
Model 3: Three-factor model | 1313.71 | 167 | 254.64 *** | 2 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
Model 4: Bifactor model with two-factor | 988.34 | 149 | 325.37 *** | 18 | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Model 5: Bifactor model with three-factor | 736.64 | 147 | 251.70 *** | 2 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
Model 6: Bifactor model with three-factor (modification) | 614.65 | 145 | 122.00 *** | 2 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
General Factor | PA | NA (Afraid) | NA (Upset) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U 1 | S 2 | U | S | U | S | U | S | |
C1 (interested) | 1 | 0.37 *** | 1 | 0.58 *** | ||||
C2 (irritable) | −0.01 | −0.04 | 1 | 0.62 *** | ||||
C3 (distressed) | 0.01 | 0.003 | 1.35 *** | 0.71 *** | ||||
C4 (alert) | 0.66 *** | 0.23 ** | 0.81 *** | 0.44 *** | ||||
C5 (excited) | 0.63 *** | 0.23 * | 1.23 *** | 0.68 *** | ||||
C6 (ashamed) | 0.50 * | 0.15 ** | 0.74 *** | 0.41 *** | ||||
C7 (upset) | 0.25 | 0.08 | 1.35 *** | 0.73 *** | ||||
C8 (inspired) | 1.80 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.15 | 0.07 | ||||
C9 (strong) | 1.87 *** | 0.65 *** | 0.24 | 0.13 | ||||
C10 (nervous) | 1.19 ** | 0.37 *** | 1 | 0.51 *** | ||||
C11 (guilty) | 0.39 | 0.11 * | 0.95 *** | 0.49 *** | ||||
C12 (determined) | 1.64 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.33 ** | 0.18 * | ||||
C13 (scared) | 0.45 | 0.13 * | 1.66 *** | 0.77 *** | ||||
C14 (attentive) | 1.74 *** | 0.64 *** | −0.01 | −0.01 | ||||
C15 (hostile) | 0.55 * | 0.17 ** | 1.13 *** | 0.64 *** | ||||
C16 (jittery) | 0.30 | 0.08 | 1.58 *** | 0.73 *** | ||||
C17 (enthusiastic) | 1.87 *** | 0.64 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.38 *** | ||||
C18 (active) | 1.13 *** | 0.39 *** | 1.36 *** | 0.72 *** | ||||
C19 (proud) | 1.81 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.99 *** | 0.50 *** | ||||
C20 (afraid) | 0.36 | 0.11 | 1.80 *** | 0.88 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Park, H.; Lee, J.-M.; Koo, S.; Chung, S.-Y.; Lee, S.; Cho, Y.I. A PANAS Structure Analysis: On the Validity of a Bifactor Model in Korean College Students. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416456
Park H, Lee J-M, Koo S, Chung S-Y, Lee S, Cho YI. A PANAS Structure Analysis: On the Validity of a Bifactor Model in Korean College Students. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416456
Chicago/Turabian StylePark, Hongseok, Jeong-Mi Lee, Sohee Koo, So-Youn Chung, Seongki Lee, and Young Il Cho. 2022. "A PANAS Structure Analysis: On the Validity of a Bifactor Model in Korean College Students" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416456